Oral
Answers to
Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act

Kerry McCarthy: What recent assessment he has made of the effect of the provisions of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 on trends in the level of sustainable development in Wales.

Kevin Foster: While the UK Government have not made a formal assessment of this legislation from the National Assembly for Wales, the wellbeing of future generations is already at the heart of UK Government policy.

Kerry McCarthy: The aim of this Act is to focus minds on the long term so that we leave things better off for the next generation than they are for us. Given the decade of austerity, the risk of a no-deal Brexit and the climate emergency we are currently in, how does the Minister think this legislation would fare in UK law judging by what we are doing to the future generations now?

Kevin Foster: If we were looking well to the future, we would say that this was the first Government of one the major industrialised countries to set a legal target for zero carbon emissions. We can look at the work being done in the north Wales growth deal to drive forward sustainable growth. Given that one of the tests for future generations is not handing them unsustainable debt, we can look at how we got on and tackled the deficit that was completely unsustainable when we inherited it in 2010.

Anna McMorrin: As someone who helped to develop this law from its beginning to its end in Welsh government, I have seen what a difference it has made to our public bodies, to Welsh government, and to people’s lives in Wales in terms of long-term decision making. Will the Minister commit his Government to bringing in this future generations law for the whole of the UK?

Kevin Foster: As I said, the UK Government already have the wellbeing of our future generations at the heart of our policy. Looking at Labour Members, it would be interesting to know exactly how the provisions around handing on unsustainable debt would apply to the shadow Chancellor’s economic policy.

Withdrawal Agreement

Wayne David: What recent economic assessment he has made of the potential effect on Wales of the implementation of the withdrawal agreement.

Bambos Charalambous: What recent economic assessment he has made of the potential effect on Wales of the implementation of the withdrawal agreement.

Alun Cairns: The best outcome for Wales and the Welsh economy is that the UK leaves the European Union in an orderly manner with a deal. We will continue to work with energy and determination to make sure that that happens. However, the UK will be leaving the European Union on 31 October.

Wayne David: Given that 90% of Welsh lamb is exported to other countries in the European Union, does the Secretary of State still believe that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, a viable alternative market will be Japan?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I met the Farmers Union of Wales yesterday, and I will be meeting NFU Cymru quite soon. The Japanese market is a new market that opened in January. It is wholly separate from the free trade agreement that the European Union has with Japan, so there has been lots of misreporting that the hon. Gentleman fails to recognise and understand. However, his constituency voted to leave the European Union—why is he trying to stop the process?

Bambos Charalambous: Will the Secretary of State confirm what conversations his Government colleagues have had with the manufacturing industry concerning a hard Brexit?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because manufacturing is an extremely important part of the Welsh economy. Wales has the fastest growth in the manufacturing sector across the whole of the UK economy. The Welsh manufacturing sector is in good strength, and I look forward to the new opportunities after we have left the European Union.

David Jones: This House has rejected the withdrawal agreement on three occasions, and it is therefore a dead letter. Given that the people of Wales voted to leave the European Union, does my right hon. Friend agree that we have a positive obligation to deliver Brexit and that that is less likely to be achieved if this House decides to pass the Bill that it will be considering later today?

Alun Cairns: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to him for his work in this area. The Welsh and the British public want Members in this place to act on the result of the referendum, to draw a line and move on, and to focus on growing and supporting the Welsh and the UK economies for the opportunities after we have left the European Union.

Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 594 pieces of legislation that this Parliament has passed in the event of a no-deal Brexit and the corresponding pieces of legislation passed in Brussels mean that the future for Wales, whether it be deal or no deal, is bright?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK Government are making comprehensive preparations, in the event of a deal or in the event of no deal, to best position the UK and the Welsh economy to take the new opportunities as we leave the European Union. I am determined to work with colleagues right across Whitehall to ensure that Wales is at the forefront of their thinking.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Last night, 85% of Welsh MPs voted against no deal, including some very honourable Members who braved their own Whip. No deal has no mandate from the people and no mandate from Parliament. Is the Secretary of State proud of being complicit in his Administration’s attempt at pushing through an anti-democratic, damaging version of Brexit by silencing Welsh MPs who are representing our nation’s best interests?

Alun Cairns: The right hon. Lady’s party jointly published a document, “Securing Wales’ Future”, with the Welsh Government, which said that they would honour the outcome of the referendum. The reality is that the right hon. Lady and her party are frustrating the process. People in Wales want to draw a line and move on.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Evidently the Prime Minister has a kennel of little pet dogs. As this place descends into further chaos, when the Senedd is recalled early tomorrow, Plaid Cymru will be calling for a Welsh national constitutional convention, to look at the options for Wales’s constitutional future. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether his party will get behind this national conversation, or will his seniors—the Minister for the Union and his advisers—stifle every attempt at our nation’s democracy?

Alun Cairns: The right hon. Lady claims to be the leader in Westminster of the party of Wales, but she fails to remember and to act on the instruction that came from the people of Wales to leave the European Union. She is seeking to frustrate the process. She is causing uncertainty to the Welsh economy, which is undermining business confidence.

Christina Rees: I have listened intently to the Secretary of State’s answers, and I am struggling, because he appears to be totally out of touch with what is going on in this place and in Wales. Does he now believe that the backstop is anti-democratic and risks undermining the Good Friday agreement, as his current boss claims?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Lady did not support the withdrawal agreement—she voted against it—which has contributed to the current circumstances. Does she genuinely recognise and want to act on the instruction that came from the Welsh people, which is to leave the European Union? We need to draw a line.

Christina Rees: That is another non-answer from the Secretary of State, among many. I thought the system here was that I ask the questions and he answers them, unless I have got it wrong or he wants to swap positions. I will ask him again: why did he vote for the backstop three times under his previous boss? Was that to curry favour and keep his job then, or is he trying to keep his job now, or both?

Alun Cairns: I am seeking to act on the democratic will of the Welsh and British people, and I am also seeking to respond to the demands that have been made in Parliament. The withdrawal agreement has been killed three times. We are working energetically and enthusiastically with our European allies in order to come back to this House with a deal, so that we can move on and focus on growing the economy and delivering on public services.

Universal Credit

Liz Twist: What assessment he has made of the economic effect on low-income families of the roll-out of universal credit in Wales.

Ruth Jones: What assessment he has made of the economic effect on low-income families of the roll-out of universal credit in Wales.

Kevin Foster: People claiming universal credit move into work faster, stay in work longer and spend more time looking to increase their earnings. The latest labour market statistics show the positive impact of universal credit, with unemployment in Wales down 10,000 on the previous quarter.

Liz Twist: What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about making it easier for private sector tenants in Wales to have their housing element of universal credit paid directly to their landlord?

Kevin Foster: We are always having discussions across Government about how we can improve the experience for universal credit claimants. It is possible already in certain circumstances for rent to be paid directly, but part of universal credit is ensuring that benefits mimic more the experience of being in a job and encouraging people to find one.

Ruth Jones: Does the Minister agree that, thanks to the changes that his Government have introduced this year, couples forced to transfer from pension credit to universal credit will lose up to £7,000 each and every year? What is he doing to mitigate that personal economic disaster for those couples all across Wales?

Kevin Foster: I must say that I do not recognise the figures the hon. Lady has just given, but I would say that the introduction of universal credit has ended the 16-hour cliff edge that many families faced and the introduction of the national living wage has helped boost the incomes of many across Wales.

Carolyn Harris: Mr Speaker,
“Women survive violence then have to survive on peanuts, we have nothing, no furniture, no food, no recourse to public funds, we need money to live on, otherwise we are either destitute or die.”
Those are the words of a Welsh survivor of domestic violence. Is the Secretary of State aware that his Government’s universal credit scheme is responsible for causing victims more pain, more hardship and more heartbreak? These survivors need help, not hurdles. When will he start speaking up for them?

Kevin Foster: I can say that the Department for Work and Pensions has been working with Welsh Women’s Aid to deliver training for domestic abuse specialists in jobcentres. By the end of September, every jobcentre in Wales will be covered by a specialist who will further raise awareness of domestic abuse and be able to provide additional support.

Shared Prosperity Fund

Alison Thewliss: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the shared prosperity fund.

Scott Mann: What steps the Government are taking to establish the shared prosperity fund.

Alun Cairns: I have regular discussions with my Cabinet colleagues on a range of issues, including the UK shared prosperity fund. The Government are committed to consulting widely on the design of the fund, which will provide a real opportunity to strengthen the bonds of the Union through a programme of investment to tackle inequalities between communities.

Alison Thewliss: That does not really tell us very much. The Government snuck out a statement pre-recess, with no guarantees and a very vague promise of consultation. Can the Secretary of State tell me today whether Wales and Scotland will be able to set their own priorities under the shared prosperity fund, or is this just another blatant Westminster power grab?

Alun Cairns: Wales has received more than £4 billion—or almost £5 billion—over the last 17 years or more, but remains the poorest part of the UK. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change that funding, so it can be more responsive to the needs of communities, rather than perhaps centralised bureaucrats.

Scott Mann: Like Wales, Cornwall has benefited from the European regional development fund and objective 1 funding. Can I ask what representations the Welsh Secretary is making to the Treasury to ensure that small businesses are able to bid in, because that was the big problem with the funding in the previous round?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He talks about the engagement of the private sector and small businesses, particularly with what are currently European programmes, and the difficulty they have had. The UK shared prosperity fund will allow us to respond to the demands of businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency and right across Wales.

Nick Smith: The Ebbw Vale to Cardiff train line is critical for Blaenau Gwent’s economy. It needs track, bridging and signalling work to run more trains an hour, but Wales has received just 2% of rail enhancement funding since 2011, so the shared prosperity fund would really help here. Will the Secretary of State meet me, Transport Ministers and the Welsh Government to help provide funding and improve this line for Blaenau Gwent?

Alun Cairns: I will happily work constructively with the hon. Gentleman, as I regularly do—I pay tribute to the work he has been doing to highlight the challenges and opportunities that the Ebbw Vale railway line brings—and I will meet him and our colleagues. I would highlight, however, that Cardiff Central is also important to the network in and around south Wales. The renewal of the station, which we have announced, has been well received within the region, as has the new West Wales Parkway, which will take tens of minutes off journey times between Cardiff and west Wales.

Glyn Davies: Can the Secretary of State give this House an assurance that every part of Wales—not just west Wales and the valleys, but every part of Wales, including mid-Wales—will be in a position to benefit from the funding opportunities that will arise from the UK shared prosperity fund?

Alun Cairns: May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for highlighting and championing this cause for some time? He recognises that some of the poorest wards in Wales are outside the current European rules about where money can be spent. His constituency is one and my constituency is another, so reshaping the UK shared prosperity fund will give us an opportunity to support his most vulnerable constituents and others, wherever else they are in Wales.

Albert Owen: Agencies, small businesses and local authorities are making post-2020 plans now. What assurances can the Secretary of State give those businesses and agencies that the money will become available, and how will they manage to access this money?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Even if we were remaining in the European Union and we had not had the referendum, there would be no clarity on his question from a European perspective. The way in which the Labour party is prolonging the Brexit debate means more uncertainty for community groups that want to benefit from the post-Brexit policies, such as the UK shared prosperity fund.

Leaving the EU: No Deal

David Davies: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on economic preparations for the UK leaving the EU without a deal on 31 October 2019.

Alun Cairns: I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues. We would prefer to leave the European Union with a deal, but if it is not possible, we will leave without a deal, and the Government are committed to preparing for this outcome.

David Davies: Wales will benefit from Brexit with or without a deal. Does the Secretary of State agree that we could deliver an extra boost to the economy of south Wales by devolving air passenger duty to the Welsh Government, allowing them to cut that tax in Wales, which would put Wales on an equal footing with Scotland and Northern Ireland?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend has made many points. I pay tribute to the research and report that the Welsh Affairs Committee, which he chairs, has published. It has recently received a response from the Government. It highlighted that this is one aviation market. Therefore, we cannot act in a way that would benefit one part and destroy another. I fear that the Welsh Government would increase air passenger duty in Cardiff and make the airport even more uncompetitive.

David Hanson: What provision have the Government made to support Welsh farmers in the event of a 40% tariff on 1 November?

Alun Cairns: I met the Farmers Union of Wales yesterday to discuss the challenges and opportunities that Brexit will bring. I plan to meet NFU Cymru shortly. We recognise that there are new markets that we need to be exploring. I have already highlighted Japan as one of those markets, but there are many more.

Chris Ruane: To continue that point, 40% of the UK’s sheepmeat is exported tariff-free to the EU. Yesterday, our shadow team met the FUW, which said that on 1 November there will be a huge lamb market in Dolgellau. If we crash out of the EU without a deal on Halloween, the lamb export market will disappear overnight. The lambs in Dolgellau will have no market value and will be culled, buried or sold off as pet food. Which of those options does the Secretary of State think is the best?

Alun Cairns: Our record supporting rural Wales and the rural economy across the whole of the UK is strong. It compares favourably with the hon. Gentleman’s performance. I hardly saw him as the champion of Welsh agriculture in the past.

Leaving the EU: No Deal

Andrew Bowie: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on planning for the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

Alun Cairns: I have regular discussions with Welsh Government Ministers on a range of issues, including preparations for leaving the EU. Within days of the Prime Minister’s appointment at the end of July, the Prime Minister and I met the First Minister in Cardiff. Naturally our departure from the EU was central to these discussions.

Andrew Bowie: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. There are some concerns that the devolved Administrations might not be as ready as this Government for a no-deal exit. Can he confirm that this Government are doing all they can to ensure that the entire UK is ready to leave, come what may, on 31 October?

Alun Cairns: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. The devolved Administrations are invited to the exit planning committees that the UK Government hold. They are fully aware of the proactive, positive steps and measures that we have introduced in preparation for leaving the European Union. I am only disappointed that the same courtesy and invitation have not been extended by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, which would allow and give us the same confidence.

Jessica Morden: The Secretary of State talked about manufacturing and the economy. The impact of Tata’s announcement on Monday that it will close Cogent’s Orb steelworks will be keenly felt in Newport. It is devastating news for workers and their families. Will he meet me urgently to discuss what the Government will do?

Alun Cairns: Absolutely. I will meet the hon. Lady and work with her to co-ordinate our response. I recognise the priority she has placed on this operation for some time and she highlighted some of the risks and concerns she had some time ago. Yesterday, I spoke to Roy Rickhuss from Community union. I have, naturally, also spoken to Tata. We are working with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in terms of challenging the issues that Tata is raising to seek to bring it to the most competitive position possible.

Jonathan Edwards: With reports that the British Government are stockpiling body bags as part of their no-deal Brexit preparations, what assessment has the Secretary of State undertaken of the amount of Welsh people who may die as a result of medical shortages for a no-deal Brexit?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman, by supporting the motion last night and the Bill this evening, is simply prolonging the uncertainty. The Welsh people and the British people want certainty about our exit from the European Union. We are determined to leave at the end of October. We would like to leave with a deal—that will give us the smoothest possible exit—but at least we can plan for the opportunities the future brings. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. I appeal to the House to calm down. There are a very large number of noisy private conversations taking place, which, at the very least, is rather discourteous to and disrespectful of the people of Wales.

Strength of the Union

Ross Thomson: What steps the Government are taking to strengthen the Union.

Kevin Foster: This Government are a Unionist Government firmly committed to strengthening our United Kingdom. My noble Friend Lord Dunlop is conducting an independent inquiry to ensure UK Government structures are configured to strengthen the working of the Union, while respecting and supporting the current devolution settlements.

Ross Thomson: Does my hon. Friend agree that all four nations of our United Kingdom benefit from the close bonds of our Union and that, as we leave the EU with powers returning from Brussels, we can strengthen those bonds even further?

Kevin Foster: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Seeing powers coming back to this United Kingdom and going to the devolved tier of government will help to bring our four nations closer together. That is why it is so strange that those people who call themselves nationalists actually want to take powers back so they can give them away again to Brussels.

Kevin Brennan: Is it not the case that the real nationalist party in this Chamber now, after last night’s events, is the Tory party, which is rapidly turning into the right-wing English nationalist party?

Kevin Foster: Well, what a load of rubbish. This party is absolutely firmly committed to being a Unionist party, and we will not be fanning the flames of division by raising the prospects of second referendums, including second referendums on separation.

Leaving the EU: Potential Benefits

Peter Bone: What assessment he has made of the potential benefits to Wales of the UK leaving the EU on 31 October 2019.

Alun Cairns: The Welsh economy approaches EU exit from a strong position. Leaving the EU will allow us to shape our own ambitious trade and investment opportunities, putting Wales and the wider UK at the forefront of global trade and investment.

Peter Bone: My gosh, Mr Speaker, the Minister has answered the question for me. I cannot ask a supplementary.

Alun Cairns: We can take great pride in how the economy has performed since the referendum took place: record levels of employment; low levels of unemployment; and inactivity levels in Wales now that are better than the rest of the UK for the first time in decades. I look forward to the opportunities being a participant in new free trade agreements right around the world will give to the Welsh economy.

Chris Bryant: rose—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Now the hon. Gentleman knows how popular he is, he has a right to have his question heard with courtesy. We will keep going for as long as necessary to ensure that that happens in every case.

Chris Bryant: I’m not sure it’s worth it, to be honest. [Laughter.] If the UK leaves the European Union without a deal, how will Welsh farmers be able to sell their lamb in the European Union?

Alun Cairns: I have already mentioned the positive engagement that we have with the farming and rural affairs community, and the new markets that are open  to us. The hon. Gentleman, by voting last night in favour of a motion and by supporting the Bill tonight, will just prolong the uncertainty and will not allow farmers to prepare. We are determined to leave the European Union. We want to leave the European Union with a deal, but we must draw a line and move on to exciting economic opportunities thereafter.

Severn Bridge Tolls

Chris Matheson: What recent economic assessment he has made of the effect of the removal of tolls on the Severn bridge.

Kevin Foster: I am delighted to say that July 2019 saw a 20% increase in traffic westbound and an 8% increase eastbound compared with July 2018. It is too early to make a detailed economic assessment, but our initial estimates were that it would boost the Welsh economy by around £100 million a year.

Chris Matheson: I am really pleased to hear of those benefits. Will the Minister have a word with the Transport Secretary—just along from him on the Government Front Bench—and get him to take notice of them and have him remove the tolls on the Mersey crossing, which the Conservative Government said that they would never levy in the first place?

Kevin Foster: Each crossing is based on an individual case, and the Mersey Gateway, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, was built in 2017, was based on a 30-year concession to fund its construction.

RAF St Athan: School of Technical Training

Madeleine Moon: What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on No. 4 School of Technical Training at RAF St Athan.

Kevin Foster: The Secretary of State has regular discussions with Ministers at the Ministry of Defence on No. 4 School of Technical Training. I will be meeting Ministers at the MOD shortly to explore options not only on maintaining St Athan’s role as an important military and civilian site, but on how to enhance the wider military presence in Wales.

Madeleine Moon: The commandant has said that the school will close before April 2024. What steps is the Secretary of State taking, given that it is in his constituency, to ensure that the people there will have a chance either to move to Cosford or Lyneham, or, even better, to remain in Wales with this viable school remaining where it should be?

Kevin Foster: Thankfully, those who are based in St Athan have a very strong champion in the local MP and the Secretary of State for Wales in ensuring that the military presence is maintained. We just wish that the Welsh Government were slightly more co-operative.

PRIME MINISTER

THE PRIME MINISTER WAS ASKED—

Engagements

Siobhain McDonagh: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 September.

Boris Johnson: I know that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to PC Andrew Harper, who was killed while on duty. His death and the serious injuries sustained by PC Stuart Outten in London and PC Gareth Phillips in Birmingham are a powerful reminder of the dangers that police officers face every day to keep us safe.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Siobhain McDonagh: May I associate myself with the comments about the brave acts of the police officers?
On Brexit, the former Prime Minister’s deal was unacceptable to this House, but to leave without a deal is unthinkable, yet the Prime Minister pursues a game of brinksmanship built on the livelihoods, health and future of my constituents and our country. There is still an option to resolve this once and for all: if the Prime Minister really believes in no deal, let him put it to the people and ask our people if that is the price they want to pay.

Boris Johnson: As the hon. Lady knows very well, this Government will take this country out of the European Union on 31 October. There is only one thing that stands in our way: the surrender Bill currently being proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to confirm, when he stands up shortly, that if that surrender Bill is passed, he will allow the people of this country to have their view on what he is proposing to hand over in their name with an election on 15 October.

Robert Halfon: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when we leave the European Union on 31 October, we will no longer be subjected to EU rules on VAT on our energy bills, costing Harlow constituents and households around £55 extra every year? Will he confirm that we will take back control of our energy bills and save households around £1.5 billion a year on their heating and lighting?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for his excellent suggestion. As he knows, we currently apply the reduced 5% rate on domestic fuel and power, which is the lowest allowed under EU law, but of course when we leave the EU on 31 October, it will be open to us to change this to the benefit of the people of Harlow.

Jeremy Corbyn: I start by paying my deepest respects to PC Andrew Harper, who died in the line of duty. It is a reminder of the risks that he faced and that police officers face all the time trying to protect communities. We send our sympathies to his family, colleagues and friends.
I also send our condolences to those affected by Hurricane Dorian, which hit the Bahamas at the weekend. I hope and am sure that the Government and the Department for International Development will do all they can to send all the help that is necessary.
Yesterday, it was revealed that the Prime Minister’s negotiating strategy was to run down the clock and that the Attorney General told him that his belief that the EU would drop the backstop was a complete fantasy. Are these reports accurate, or can the Prime Minister provide the detail of the proposals he has put forward to the EU?

Boris Johnson: Our negotiating strategy is to get a deal by the summit on 17 October, to take this country out of the EU on 31 October and to get Brexit done. The right hon. Gentleman’s surrender Bill would wreck any chances of the talks. We do not know what his strategy would be if he took over. He is asking for mobs of Momentum activists to paralyse the traffic. What are they supposed to chant? What is the slogan? “What do we want? Dither and delay. When do we want it? We don’t know.” That is his policy. Can he confirm now that he will allow the people of this country to decide on what he is giving up in their name with a general election on 15 October? Or is he frit?

Jeremy Corbyn: My first question to the Prime Minister, and no answer given! I asked what proposals had been put to the EU. We asked yesterday—many colleagues asked—and he seems utterly incapable of answering. Any rational human being would assume therefore that none have been put and there is no answer. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues have said he is making progress. The EU’s chief negotiator, the Chancellor of Germany and the Taoiseach of Ireland say that no proposals have yet been made by the UK. If the Prime Minister thinks he has made progress, will he publish the proposals he has put forward to replace the backstop?

Boris Johnson: As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, you do not negotiate in public. We are making substantial progress and we will get that backstop out. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. Forgive me for interrupting, Prime Minister, but there is a long way to go and a lot of questions to be reached. The questions must be heard, and the Prime Minister’s responses must and will be heard.

Boris Johnson: Let us be absolutely clear. This Government will get a deal from our friends in Brussels and we will get the backstop out. We will get an agreement that I think the House can agree with. The only thing standing in our way is the undermining of our negotiations by this surrender Bill, which would lead to more dither and delay. We delayed in March; we delayed in April; and now the right hon. Gentleman wants to delay again for absolutely no purpose whatever. What does he intend by this? The Government are spending £1 billion to put 20,000 more police officers on the streets. He wants to spend £1 billion a month—net—to keep us in the EU beyond 31 October. I will never allow that.

Jeremy Corbyn: I really fail to see how I can be accused of undermining negotiations, because no negotiations are taking place. The right hon. Gentleman  has been Prime Minister for six weeks, and he promised to get Brexit sorted. In six weeks, he has presented nothing to change the previous Prime Minister’s deal, which he twice voted against. The negotiations that he talks about are a sham. All that he is doing is running down the clock.
At the weekend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that food prices would go up under no deal. Will the Prime Minister publish the Yellowhammer documents so that people can see which food prices will go up and by how much?

Boris Johnson: The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said absolutely no such thing, and I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, thanks to my right hon. Friend’s good offices and thanks to his efforts, preparations for no deal are very far advanced. I can also tell him that the surest way of getting no deal is to undermine this country’s ability to negotiate, which is what he is doing.
If this Bill is passed this afternoon—I do not want an election, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman wants an election, but there is a petition on his own Labour website in which 57,000 people, including Carol, Nigel, Graham and Phoebe, have called for an election. I do not know whether there is a Jeremy on the list. I do know that the right hon. Gentleman is worried about free trade deals with America, but I can see only one chlorinated chicken in the House, and he is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. Will he confirm that he will let the people decide on what he is doing to this country’s negotiating position by having a general election on 15 October?

Jeremy Corbyn: Perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us what the negotiating position actually is.
The Prime Minister may have forgotten the question that I asked, given his rather lengthy peroration. When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster denied that there would be shortages of fresh food, the British Retail Consortium said that that was “categorically untrue”.
I hope that no more young female staff are going to be frogmarched out of Downing Street, because there was another Government leak at the weekend, concerning disruption of our ports. The leaked documents, written by the Government in the last fortnight, show that no deal would lead to shortages on the shelves and shortages of medical supplies in hospitals. People need to prepare. So I ask the Prime Minister again: will he publish the Yellowhammer documents in full, so that people can see which foodstuffs are not going to be available, which medicines are not going to be supplied and what will happen given the shortages of vital supplies in every one of our hospitals all over the country?

Boris Johnson: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is guilty of the most shameless scaremongering. We have made ample preparations for coming out of the EU. What his party is recommending is yet—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. It is very difficult to hear the responses from the Prime Minister. Members must calm themselves. There is a long way to go.

Boris Johnson: What the right hon. Gentleman is recommending is yet more dither, yet more delay and yet more uncertainty for business. What we in the Government want to do is deliver on the mandate of the people. The right hon. Gentleman used to be a democrat. He used to believe in upholding the referendum result. Can he say now whether he would vote in favour of leave or remain, and can he say now whether is in favour of a second referendum or not?

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister failed to answer my questions about food supplies, about medicine supplies and about the problems in hospitals. He refuses to publish the Yellowhammer documents. He talks about scaremongering. Where does the information come from, other than his office in his Government? He is obviously so confident of the position that he has adopted that he is now prepared to spend £100 million of our money on an advertising campaign to try to persuade people that everything is fine. He knows it is not, and they know it is not. He is hiding the facts.
The Government have refused to publish their impact assessments on how a no-deal Brexit would affect poverty in this country. They received a request under the Freedom of Information Act from the Glasgow-based Poverty Alliance; the DWP replied that the public interest would not be served by that disclosure. Will the Prime Minister publish that analysis? If he won’t, what has he got to hide?

Boris Johnson: Unlike the right hon. Member, who would squander £1 billion a month of taxpayers’ money on staying pointlessly in the EU, this Government are getting on with running a sound economy so that the poorest people in our country are seeing increases in their wages for the first time in more than a decade. I am proud to say that those on the living wage are now taking home £4,500 more every year than they were in 2010, thanks to this Conservative Government.

Jeremy Corbyn: Mr Speaker, you don’t have to go very far from the portals of this House to see real destitution: people begging and sleeping on the streets; child poverty is up compared with 2010; pensioner poverty is up; and in-work poverty is up. The Prime Minister will not give us any of the information of the assessments of increased poverty that could come from his Government’s proposals.
We are less than 60 days away from leaving the EU with no deal. The Prime Minister had two days in office before the summer recess and then planned to prorogue Parliament. Yesterday, he lost one vote—his first vote in Parliament—and he now wants to dissolve Parliament. He is desperate—absolutely desperate—to avoid scrutiny. [Interruption.] In his third day in office, after five questions from me, we have not had an answer to any of them. I can see why he is desperate to avoid scrutiny: he has no plan to get a new deal—no plan, no authority and no majority. If he—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. If we have to go on longer because people sitting on the Treasury Bench are yelling to try to disrupt, so be it, we will go on longer. Some people used to believe in good behaviour; I believe in good behaviour on both sides of the House. It had better happen or it will take a whole lot longer—very simple, very clear.

Jeremy Corbyn: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
If the Prime Minister does to the country what he has done to his party in the past 24 hours, a lot of people have a great deal to fear from his incompetence, his vacillation and his refusal to publish known facts—that are known to him—about the effects of a no-deal Brexit.

Boris Johnson: I really do not see how with a straight face the right hon. Gentleman can accuse anybody of being unwilling to stand up to scrutiny when he will not agree to submit his surrender Bill to the verdict of the people in an election. He is frit; he is frightened.
He makes a contrast between this Government and his own proposals. The contrast could not be clearer: we think that the friends of this country are to be found in Paris, in Berlin and in the White House, and he thinks that they are in the Kremlin, in Tehran and—[Interruption.] He does. And in Caracas—and I think he is “caracas”!
We are putting 20,000 police on the street, we have 20 new hospital upgrades, we are growing the economy. The right hon. Gentleman, by contrast, would put a £300 billion tax on every company in the country, he wants a tax on homes, and he is calling incessantly for a general strike. The shadow Education Secretary says that Labour’s economic policy is—and I quote, by your leave, Mr Speaker,—“shit-or-bust”; I say it is both.
What this country needs is sensible, moderate, progressive Conservative government and to take this country out of the EU on 31 October, and that is what we are going to deliver.

Hon. Members:: More!

John Bercow: There will indeed be more, starting with the closed question from Dr Julian Lewis.

National Security Adviser

Julian Lewis: I should like to ask a well-behaved Question 8 on the National Security Adviser. For what reasons the roles of Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser were merged; and if he will make it his policy to separate those roles.

Boris Johnson: As my right hon. Friend is aware, the decision to put the two roles together was taken by my predecessor, although I have a high admiration for the gentleman in question.

Julian Lewis: I hope that my right hon. Friend is not going to follow every policy adopted by his predecessor. This is one that he should not follow. The Defence Committee needs to take evidence from the National Security Adviser on the failure to anticipate the Iranians’ reaction to the British seizure of a tanker. It is hardly likely, however, that the Cabinet Secretary will come before the Defence Committee, so would it not make sense to have a full-time occupant of the post of National Security Adviser as soon as possible so that Select Committees and the National Security Committee can do our jobs properly?

Boris Johnson: I think that the role has been very well performed in recent times, but I take my right hon. Friend’s point very humbly and sincerely, and I  will ensure that invitations to appear before his Committee are considered in the usual way and that he gets all the satisfaction he desires.

Engagements

Ian Blackford: Last night, Parliament once again defeated this shambolic Tory Government. Today, we have seized back control from a Prime Minister who is behaving more like a dictator than a democrat. The Prime Minister must be stopped, and MPs must tonight unite across this House to take no deal off the table. We will defeat the Government again, so, when we succeed, will the Prime Minister respect the democratic vote of this House and the democratic will of the people we represent and finally act to remove the threat of a catastrophic no-deal Brexit?

Boris Johnson: I might ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will respect the democratic will of the people of the United Kingdom, which this House voted to do time and again, to implement the result of the referendum.

Ian Blackford: I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a new boy, but may I suggest to him that we ask the questions and he is supposed to answer them? Quite simply, my colleagues and I are sent here by the people of Scotland, where we have a majority. The people of Scotland voted to remain in the European Union and we are not going to be dragged out against our will by the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister must also not be paying attention to the polls this morning. They show that the Scottish National party is polling to win a majority in Scotland once again, with the Tories in retreat, so if he wants an election, he should enable the Bill and bring it on.
It is clear for all to see that the Prime Minister is playing a game of bluff and bluster. He does not care about stopping a no-deal Brexit. His strategy, as his lead adviser put it, is a sham. This is not a Parliament versus the people; it is a Parliament standing up for the people. The people did not vote for a no-deal Brexit. This Prime Minister is robbing the people of power and handing control to the Leave campaign, the cult now running No. 10. Once again, I ask the Prime Minister: are you a dictator or a Democrat? Will he accept the legislation today so that no deal can be avoided, and will he let us vote for an election so that the people can truly decide the next steps?

Boris Johnson: I am a democrat, because I not only want to respect the will of the people in the referendum but want to have an election—or I am willing to have an election—if the terrible Bill goes through.
There is a reason why the separatists in Scotland drone on and on about breaking up and smashing the oldest and most successful political union, and that is to detract from their appalling domestic record. They are a total shambles. They have the highest taxes anywhere in Europe. Their educational standards are falling, for which they are responsible. Their signature policy—[Interruption.] This is a useful point. Their signature policy is to return Scotland to the European Union after Brexit, complete with the euro, the full panoply of  EU laws and, as I never tire of saying, the surrendering of Scottish fish just when they have been taken back by this country.

Lucy Allan: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister to his place. My constituents sent me here to speak for them, and what they care about is better hospital care, more police on our streets, and good schools for their children. Does the Prime Minister agree with people in Telford that those are the issues we should be discussing in this place? Will he commit to building on his welcome spending announcements to deliver great public services for my constituents?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much. We love Telford, of course, and it is going to see even more when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announces his spending review shortly. There will be investment in the NHS, more police officers to keep our streets and the hon. Lady’s streets safe, and more money for every school in this country. Conservatives are delivering on the priorities of the British people.

Douglas Chapman: Mr Speaker, you know that I am not a doomster or a gloomster. On that positive note, I thank the Prime Minister for boosting support for Scottish independence just a few weeks into his premiership—they may be his last few weeks, too.
According to research by the UK Trade Policy Observatory, a no-deal Brexit would cost up to 1,100 jobs in my constituency and over 63,000 jobs across Scotland. Will the Prime Minister explain to me and my constituents, who are facing that dreadful prospect, what their families should about the heavy price that they may pay for a Brexit that they never voted for?

Boris Johnson: Of course we are preparing for a no-deal Brexit if we absolutely must have one. I do not think that the consequences will be anything like as bad as the merchants of Project Fear have said, but the way to avoid a no-deal Brexit is to allow this Government to get on and do a deal at the summit on 17 October. The choice for this country is who they want doing that deal: this Government or that Labour party, led by Jeremy Corbyn.

John Bercow: Order. We do not name people in the Chamber. People must observe the rules—[Interruption.] Order. I am simply and politely informing the Prime Minister of the very long-established procedure with which everybody, including the Prime Minister, must comply. That is the position—no doubt, no argument, no contradiction—and that is the end of the matter.

Dame Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the new Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box and tell him that this year we celebrate 10 years since this House passed the Autism Act, which is still the only disability-specific piece of legislation in the UK. The all-party parliamentary group on autism, made up of Members from all parts of the House, will publish next week the 10th annual review, with recommendations for the Government right across the board. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to look at the recommendations carefully and instruct his Chancellor to put more resources and more money into helping people with autism and their families receive the help and services they need?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for everything she has done for that cause over many years, and I reassure her that, very shortly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will outline not just more money for primary schools and secondary schools, but also a big investment in schools for special educational needs and disabilities. That is, again, delivering on the priorities of the British people.

Geraint Davies: People in Swansea voted to leave the EU, but leave voters are saying to me that they did not vote for a no deal or for “do or die” on 31 October. They want to live. They voted for good things—for more money, more jobs and more control—and now they see that they will get less money, less jobs and less control, so they want a final say.
Will the Prime Minister undertake, when he goes to extend article 50 after the passage of the Bill we are considering this afternoon, to ensure there is a proper referendum so that there is a choice between a managed deal and remain, and not a kamikaze no deal?

Boris Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman wants to put that matter to the people, the best thing he can do is persuade his right hon. Friend to summon up his courage and to stop being so frit. If he is going to pass this wretched surrender Bill, at least he should submit it to the judgment of the people in the form of a general election.
If the hon. Gentleman wants to implement the will of the people of Swansea, what he should do is vote with this Government and not for the surrender Bill tonight.

David Gauke: The Prime Minister has said that the Prorogation of Parliament is nothing to do with Brexit. Is that still his position?

Boris Johnson: As my right hon. Friend knows full well, there have been demands for the Prorogation of Parliament ahead of a Queen’s Speech from the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and from across the House. This Session has lasted longer than any in the last 400 years, and there will be ample opportunity to debate the Brexit deal in this House after 17 October if this Government are allowed to get on and deliver a deal.

Adrian Bailey: The Chancellor today announced another £2 billion, on top of the £6.3 billion already allocated, to help companies after a no-deal Brexit. Industry, the public and Parliament have a right to know which industries will benefit, for how long and what the total cost will be to the taxpayer. Can the Prime Minister tell us?

Boris Johnson: There is a great deal of preparatory work going on—particularly in the west midlands, which the hon. Gentleman represents—to make sure that automotive supply chains are indeed ready for a no-deal scenario, but we do not want a no-deal scenario. And the way to avoid it is not to vote for the absurd surrender Bill that is before the House today and to let the Government get on and negotiate a deal, because that is what we want to do.

Douglas Ross: The Scotch whisky industry is hugely important in Moray. The potential tariffs applied by the US as part of its trade war with the EU could cost hundreds or thousands of jobs across Scotland and the United Kingdom, so what representations has the Prime Minister made to President Trump? Will his Government do everything possible to avoid these tariffs being applied to the Scotch whisky industry?

Boris Johnson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on everything he does to represent that vital industry, which earns billions of pounds in revenue for this country. Tariffs on Scotch whisky would be absolutely absurd—a point we have made repeatedly to our friends in the United States—but, again, when we do free trade deals around the world, Scotch whisky is one of those many products that will have its chances boosted in growing export markets.

Karen Lee: Last weekend, in Lincoln and right across the country, there were cross-party protests against the Prorogation of Parliament. Does this unelected Prime Minister, who has no majority in this House, believe that his attack on our democracy is his only means of forcing a disastrous no-deal Brexit on Lincoln and on the businesses and people of this country?

Boris Johnson: If the hon. Lady wants to speak for the people of Lincoln, who, after all, voted to leave —yes, they did—the best thing she can do is make sure we come out of the EU on 31 October with a deal. If she is genuinely prepared to frustrate that ambition, through the surrender deal being proposed today, will she at least have a word with her friend on the Front Bench and urge him, as she speaks of democracy, to submit his Bill to the will of the people, in the form of a general election on 15 October? Will she at least say that to him?

Karen Bradley: Many of us in this House will know the value of community hospitals in our constituencies, with none more valued than Leek Moorlands Hospital in my constituency. A consultation has recently been undertaken on the provision of healthcare in north Staffordshire, and there is understandable concern about the future of Leek Moorlands. So will the Prime Minister join my campaign to keep the hospital open in Leek, with enhanced services, for the benefit of all the people of Leek and Staffordshire Moorlands?

Boris Johnson: First, let me thank my right hon. Friend for everything she has done for the people of Northern Ireland and for rightly raising this issue in her constituency with me. Of course she will understand that decisions affecting Leek Moorlands must be led by clinicians, but I hope a solution can be found that benefits everyone in her constituency.

Paul Blomfield: In a desperate attempt to win yesterday’s vote, the Prime Minister apparently made emotional appeals to Conservative MPs that he was serious in seeking a deal, but his answers in the House yesterday and today make it clear that there are no real negotiations, in public or in private. Those with whom he claims to be negotiating in the European Union have said:
“Nothing has been put on the table”.
So does the Prime Minister understand why, across this country, people find it difficult to trust a word he says?

Boris Johnson: May I tell the hon. Gentleman that what the people of this country want to see is us come together to come out of the EU on 31 October with a deal? We are making great progress with our friends and partners in Brussels and Dublin, and even in Paris, but I am afraid those talks are currently being undermined by the absurd Bill before the House today. I urge him to reject it. If he must pass it, will he have a word with his right hon. Friend and ensure that that Bill is put to the people, in the form of a general election?

Dominic Grieve: In the light of the Prime Minister’s answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Gauke), could the Prime Minister please explain why it has proved impossible to find any official or Minister prepared to state that the reasons for Prorogation were to pave the way for a Queen’s Speech, in the course of the current legal proceedings in which the Government are involved? Would the Prime Minister like to reconsider the answer he has just given to the House?

Boris Johnson: I hesitate to advise my right hon. and learned Friend about legal proceedings but, if he looks at what happened in Scotland this morning, he will discover that that case was thrown out.

Karen Buck: As a result of budget cuts to the Home Office, largely enacted while the right hon. Gentleman was Mayor of London, police numbers plummeted: we have 1,000 fewer officers in the west London command unit alone; and we are one third down on police officers in my borough of Westminster. He is now promising to get us back to where we were in 2010, with an additional 20,000 officers. He has told us, and he said this again today, that those 20,000 will be frontline police and on the streets. It is, however, now clear that at least 7,000 of those officers will not be frontline police. So in order to help this House build some trust in any of the promises he makes, can he tell us whether that is true?

Boris Johnson: I think it absolutely bizarre that a London Labour Member of Parliament should ignore the role of the present Mayor of London, who is, frankly, not a patch on the old guy. I left him £600 million and he has squandered it on press officers. Sadiq Khan has squandered it on press officers, and the faster we get rid of him and get more police officers out on the street, the better. That is the best possible argument for Shaun Bailey as Mayor of London.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. In the remaining minutes of this session, I appeal to colleagues to take account of the fact that we are visited by a distinguished group of Lebanese parliamentarians, at the invitation of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the all-party group on Lebanon, which is chaired by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). We would like to set them a good example; I am not sure at the moment how impressed they will be.

Gary Streeter: I think I can comply with that advice, Mr Speaker.
I welcome the extra £14 billion that was recently announced for schools, especially in respect of South West Devon, where I understand we will have the largest increase in the country to correct historical underspending. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this cash boost will help our hard-working teachers to prepare the next generation to reach their full potential? Will it not be wonderful, when we get through Brexit, to start to talk about education, health and social care—the things our constituents are really bothered about?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is exactly why we need that three-year investment in education, and to get Brexit done on 31 October and not be attracted to any more dither, delay and confusion under the Labour party.

Vernon Coaker: Yesterday, the Prime Minister booted 21 MPs out of his own party for voting against a reckless no-deal Brexit. They included well-respected Members of this House, including a former Chancellor, Churchill’s grandson and the Father of the House. Presumably, that was done on the orders of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. Given the fact that the Prime Minister himself voted against the former Prime Minister’s deal without losing the Whip, does this not demonstrate to the British public his view of life—namely, that there is one rule for him and another for everyone else?

Boris Johnson: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Leave me to control the proceedings; I should be immensely grateful for your assistance in that regard. The heckling must cease and we will hear the reply.

Boris Johnson: I am not going to take any lectures from anybody in the Labour party about how to run a party. Theirs is a party in which good, hard-working MPs are daily hounded out by antisemitic mobs. Let us be absolutely clear: if the hon. Gentleman is interested in democracy, I hope he has been listening to what I have been saying today. In an anti-democratic way, the Bill that will come before the House today would hand over this country’s right to decide how long to remain in the EU, and it would hand it over to the EU itself. That is what the Bill involves. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that is a good idea, let him submit it to the judgment of the British people in an election.

Richard Harrington: I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, will know that tomorrow is the ninth annual Watford jobs fair. I am taking particular interest in the 1,000 or so vacancies this year, and I feel that other Members on both sides of the House might be interested as well. I thank Victoria Lynch and Anna Cox for organising it. We have 1,000 vacancies in more than 60 companies. If the Prime Minister has any spare time tomorrow—there is not much going on here—perhaps he could pop up to Watford, where he would be very welcome.

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a wonderful champion for Watford and for conservative values. I have been to campaign for him in  Watford and seen how popular he is. There are now 20,000 job vacancies in the police, if he or anybody in Watford wishes to take up that role, and there are many more in nursing. As my hon. Friend knows, in Watford and throughout the country, unemployment is at a record low and employment is at record highs, because of the sound economic policies that this Government have followed.

Liz McInnes: This week, the director general of the CBI wrote to all MPs in the north-west urging us to do everything we can to get a deal that works for businesses in our region. The CBI says that a no-deal Brexit would be disastrous for north-west business, particularly small businesses. We all know what the Prime Minister has said in the past about business but, now that he has assumed a position of some responsibility, will he stop this relentless posturing around no deal, listen to the CBI and work to protect our vital businesses?

Boris Johnson: Again, that is a bit rich from a member of a party whose shadow Chancellor says that business is the enemy—[Interruption.] Where is he? He has gone. The hon. Lady should listen to the people of her constituency who voted to leave the EU and implement their wishes, and that is what this Government is going to do.

Roger Gale: Much has been made about provision for EU nationals resident in the United Kingdom post Brexit. Much less comfort has been offered to those 1.5 million United Kingdom nationals resident throughout the rest of the European Union. Is the Prime Minister in a position to confirm not on a piecemeal, but on a pan-European basis that all pensions will be paid in full, that exportable benefits will continue to be paid in full, that healthcare will be covered in full, and that rights of domicile and freedom of movement will be protected? There are frightened people who need an answer.

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend and I can assure him that that matter is, of course, at the top of our concerns with all our EU friends and partners. We have made it absolutely clear that the very, very generous offer that this country has rightly made to the 3.4 million EU citizens here in this country must be reciprocated symmetrically and in full by our friends in the way that he has described.

Stephen Morgan: The Prime Minister has said that the great city of Portsmouth is too full of obesity and drug addiction. Despite that disgraceful and inaccurate statement about my home city, how would he expect our much-loved NHS to deal with these issues when it is his Government who are exposing us to medicine and staff shortages, according to his own Health Secretary, by hurtling us towards a no-deal Brexit?

Boris Johnson: I must correct the hon. Gentleman because, in fact, unemployment is well down in his constituency, employment is up and health outcomes are up. When I made those remarks, which was many, many years ago, it was, I am afraid, when his constituency had the sad misfortune to have a Labour Government in power. That is no longer the case.

Ross Thomson: I know that, like me, my right hon. Friend has deep concerns about the unfair retrospective loan charge. It is tearing families apart, driving people to despair and reportedly some to suicide. With more than 8.000 people signing my petition saying that we cannot go on like this, can he advise the House on what urgent action his Government will be taking to address this?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his question because this is an issue that my own constituents have raised with me, and I know that many of my hon. Friends have also had this issue raised with them. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House have met people who have taken out loan charges in the expectation that they can reduce their tax exposure. It is a very, very difficult issue and I have undertaken to have a thoroughgoing review of the matter. Of course, I will make sure that my hon. Friend has every opportunity to have further discussions with the Treasury about how to redress the situation and about the gravity of the situation.

Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi: If I decide to wear a turban, or you, Mr Speaker, decide to wear a cross, or he decides to wear a kippah or skull cap, or she decides to wear a hijab or a burqa, does that mean that it is open season for right hon. Members of this House to make derogatory and divisive remarks about our appearance? For those of us who, from a young age, have had to endure and face up to being called names such as towelhead or Taliban, or to people saying we come from bongo, bongo land, we can appreciate full well the hurt and pain felt by already vulnerable Muslim women when they are described as looking like bank robbers and letterboxes. So rather than hide behind sham and whitewash investigations, when will the Prime Minister finally apologise for his derogatory and racist remarks?  Those racist remarks have led to a spike in hate crime. Given the increasing prevalence of such incidents within his party, when will the Prime Minister finally order an inquiry into Islamophobia within the Conservative party, which was something that he and his Chancellor promised on national television?

Boris Johnson: rose—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The response from the Prime Minister will be heard.

Boris Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to read the article in question, he would see that it was a strong liberal defence of—as he began his question by saying—everybody’s right to wear whatever they want in this country. I speak as somebody who is proud not only to have Muslim ancestors, but to be related to Sikhs like him. I am also proud to say that,  under this Government, we have the most diverse Cabinet in the history of this country. We truly reflect modern Britain. We have yet to hear from anywhere in the Labour party any hint of apology for the virus of antisemitism that is now rampant in its ranks. I would like to hear that from the hon. Gentleman.

Margot James: The great lady, whom I am sure you and I both revere, Mr Speaker, once said, “Advisers advise, Ministers decide.” Can I ask the Prime Minister to bear that statement closely in mind in relation to his own chief adviser, Dominic Cummings? [Applause.]

John Bercow: Order. The reply must be heard. If the House were to want as a matter of course to allow clapping, by decision of the House, so be it, but it should not otherwise become a regular practice. We have heard the question, pungently expressed. Let us hear the answer from the Prime Minister.

Boris Johnson: I am used to breasting applause from Labour audiences, particularly since, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, we are actually devoted to delivering on the mandate of those Labour constituencies and we are going to take the UK out of the EU on 31 October. As for the excellent question that my hon. Friend asked, be in no doubt that we are deciding on a policy to take this country forward, not backwards, as the Leader of the Opposition would do.

Jo Swinson: The Prime Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) was appalling. An apology was required, rather than some kind of justification that there is ever any acceptable context for remarks such as the Prime Minister made in that column. He is the Prime Minister of our country. His words carry weight and he has to be more careful with what he says. My constituent Kristin is afraid because her mum, a European citizen, has been struggling to get settled status after 45 years in this country. Our friends, colleagues and neighbours deserve better than his failures and carelessness with language.

Boris Johnson: In the case of his constituent Kristin—

Valerie Vaz: His?

Boris Johnson: Her constituent Kristin—if she has indeed been here for 45 years, and I am sure she has—should be automatically eligible for settled status. Clearly, it is a difficult case, but the answer is for the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) to bring it to the Home Secretary, and I am sure we can sort it out.

SPENDING ROUND 2019

Sajid Javid: Let me start by saying a few words about the circumstances surrounding today’s statement. We are in uncharted waters. I understand the strong feelings around the House on these important questions, but it cannot be right for a proud, sovereign democracy to ignore the will of the people. If the House votes for the Bill this afternoon, all we will be doing is delaying what the people have entrusted to us to do, and creating even more uncertainty for our democracy and our economy through a general election that nobody wants. We cannot allow that uncertainty to distract us from delivering on the people’s priorities, so today, to give certainty where we can, I announce our spending plans for Britain’s first year outside the European Union.
After a decade of recovery from Labour’s great recession, we are turning the page on austerity and beginning a new decade of renewal. A new economic era needs a new economic plan, and today we lay the foundations with the fastest increase in day-to-day spending for 15 years. The plans I announce today mean that we will be able to build a safer Britain where our streets are more secure; a healthier Britain where we can care for people throughout their lives; and a better-educated Britain where every child and young person has the opportunity to succeed, no matter where they come from or who their parents are. We will build a global Britain where we walk tall in the world with more, not less, of a presence on the international stage; a modern Britain where we embrace diversity as a strength; an enterprising Britain where we are proud of our scientists, our inventors and our entrepreneurs; and a prosperous Britain where we live within our means and growth comes from every corner of this nation. Today we lay the foundations for a stronger, fairer and more prosperous future for our great country.
It has been three years and three months since the British people gave us their instruction to leave the European Union. If people are going to have faith in the ballot box again, we absolutely have to follow through on that instruction. That is why we have set a deadline of 31 October—just 57 days away. The Government still believe that the best outcome would be to leave with a deal, and we could not be more serious about negotiating for such an outcome. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out our position, and our central ask is clear: to remove the anti-democratic backstop from the withdrawal agreement. But without the ability and willingness to walk away with no deal, we will not get a good deal.
I know that some businesses and households are concerned about what a no-deal outcome would mean for them. I recognise that, and I understand that the uncertainty around Brexit is challenging, but this is ultimately a question of trust in our democracy. In the end, a strong economy can only be built on the foundation of a successful democracy.

Kenneth Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What has this got to do with the spending review?

John Bercow: Points of order ordinarily follow statements, as I know the Father of House is well aware. The Chancellor’s opening remarks were, frankly, out of order. That is the reality of the matter. [Interruption.] Order. I do not need any help from anybody chuntering from a sedentary position. With the very greatest of respect, I will provide the rulings from the Chair. I hope everybody is very clear that that is the way it works in this place. The opening remarks from the Chancellor were out of order and I exercised a degree of latitude, but the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) is right that the statement should be focused on and exclusively concerning the spending round. As it is, the Chancellor consulted me yesterday because he was concerned about the length of the statement. It should not be longer as a result of remarks that do not relate to that subject. That is all I need to say; it is very straightforward, and I know that the Chancellor the Exchequer will comply with that simple stricture.

Sajid Javid: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Let me reassure people of this: if we leave with no deal, we will be ready. Within my first few days as Chancellor, I provided £2.1 billion of extra funding for Brexit and no-deal preparedness, and today I can announce that we will provide a further £2 billion for Brexit delivery next year as well. That means more Border Force staff, better transport infrastructure at our ports and more support for business readiness. I have tasked the Treasury with preparing a comprehensive economic response to support the economy if needed, and will work closely with the independent Bank of England to co-ordinate fiscal and monetary policy.
Sensible economic policy means that we should plan for both outcomes, and we are doing so, but we should be careful not to let our focus on planning and preparedness distract us from the opportunities that lie ahead. Brexit will allow us to reshape the British economy and reaffirm our place as a world-leading economic power. We will have the opportunity to design smarter, more flexible regulation and to cut red tape that stifles innovation. We will be able to replace inefficient EU programmes with better, home-grown alternatives. Even if we leave with no deal, I am confident that we will be able to secure a deep, best-in-class free trade agreement with the EU and pursue a genuinely independent free trade policy with the rest of the world. Deal or no deal, I am confident that our best days lie ahead.
Although the immediate outcome of the talks is uncertain, there are some things that we can be certain about when it comes to the economy and our ability to set out what we can afford to spend. As we look towards our future outside the EU, we can build on some extraordinary economic strengths. At its heart, this country is an open, outward-looking trading nation. We are at our best when we look out to the world beyond our shores. That is not just a slogan. We are the No. 1 destination in Europe for inward investment. Our language, our location, our legal system and, most of all, our people make the UK a global hub for business. We are the home of world-class businesses. A stream of ideas and innovations flows from our brilliant universities and research institutes, making the UK second only to the United States in the all-time rankings of Nobel prize winners. We also have an economic landscape that   has been watched over by long-standing, well respected institutions. All that will continue as we forge a new economic relationship with the EU.
But the vision of an open free-market enterprising economy is under threat, and if that threat transpires, it will have a direct impact on our spending power. It is under threat not from the people on the other side of the channel, but from the people on the other side of the Chamber. Let us be in no doubt about the biggest threat to the UK economy. The No. 1 concern raised by businesses and international investors is not the form of our exit from the EU; the real “Project Fear” is the agenda of the Labour party. If the Opposition had their way, whole sectors of the economy—

John Bercow: Order. This really is very unseemly, and I am sorry to have to say that to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has always been unfailingly courteous in his personal dealings with me and probably with everybody else. I say what I say with a heavy heart and not without reflection. There is a very long-established procedure to statements of this kind, and it bothers me greatly that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of a statement, seems to be veering into matters outwith—not even tangential to, but unrelated to—the spending round upon which he is focused, and I know that I say what I do with the vigorous concurrence of people who have been in this House a great deal longer than he or I. I must therefore ask the Chancellor, who I am sure is fleet of foot, so to adjust his remarks from his prepared text in order that he focuses upon that which he should focus on and not upon that which is immaterial to the statement. I am setting out the position and no one, be he ever so high, is going to tell me what the procedures in the Chamber of the House of Commons are.

Sajid Javid: Mr Speaker, you will recall that when I first took my seat as the Member of Parliament for Bromsgrove, the economy was in a very difficult and different position. Since then we have had to work hard to restore the nation’s finances, and it is precisely because we have restored the nation’s finances that we can have the spending commitments that I am about to make today. I have to—if I may, Mr Speaker—set out the context of the situation then and how we got out of it, so that we can focus on how we can generate the spending power that we are able to deploy today.
Back then, our budget deficit was 10% of GDP. We borrowed £150 billion in Labour’s last year in office. It was the highest deficit in our peacetime history. We were borrowing £1 in every £4 that was spent. The Labour party lost control of the nation’s finances, as it always does, and it fell to the Conservatives to pick up the mess.
My two immediate predecessors took the difficult decisions that we needed to bring the deficit under control, allowing us to have the spending that I am setting out today. They did that not for ideological reasons, but because running an enormous deficit meant that our debt was rising at an unsustainable rate, making our economy vulnerable to shocks and passing on a huge burden to the next generation. The deficit is now 1.1% of GDP. For the first time in a generation, public sector debt is falling sustainably as a share of our national  income, and we have boosted our credibility around the world and built confidence in the UK economy again. Labour left behind a bankrupt Britain, and we have fixed it.
Thanks to those difficult decisions and the hard work of the British people, we can now afford to turn the page on austerity and move forward from a decade of recovery to a decade of renewal. Our careful management of the public finances means that we can now afford to spend more on vital public services, so today I am deciding to set the real increase in day-to-day spending next year at £13.8 billion, delivering on the people’s priorities across the NHS, education and police, and giving certainty to all Departments about their budgets for next year—clearing the decks for a Government who are delivering Brexit.
I have always believed in the importance of living within our means, and—unlike the Labour party—I will not squander the hard work of the last nine years, so even with the extra spending, we are still meeting the current fiscal rules. While the biggest challenge a decade ago was getting the deficit down, our biggest challenge today is getting our long-term economic growth back to where it was before Labour’s great recession. If we can do that, we can ensure that there can be future spending increases that can also be sustainable, boosting wages and raising living standards, which have stagnated for too long, levelling up across the regions and nations.
We need to improve our productivity—the amount that is produced every hour worked. That is not just a technical term. Slower productivity means lower wages and uneven growth across the country. If productivity had continued to grow at its pre-crisis levels, then average annual wages would be £5,000 higher. That pressure on people’s pay packets speaks to a wider sense of disillusion and unfairness, especially in so many towns and cities outside London and the south-east. Even as the economy has grown, and people have worked hard, not everyone feels they have benefited. There is a real sense of anxiety that has emerged over the years: a sense that politicians are not listening and that the system is not working; that the free market model is not living up to its promise. We are seeing divisions emerge throughout society between regions and communities, rich and poor, rural and urban, young and old. Addressing those concerns will be a serious effort, and that is what will be shown in these spending plans today. We will develop a new economic plan for the years ahead—a plan that moves beyond the last decade of economic recovery and looks forward to a decade of renewal; a plan that invests more in the future growth of this country.
We can afford to invest more because our economy is growing and our public finances are strong. We are also deciding on our fiscal approach at a time when the cost of Government borrowing is at record lows. Interest rates have been low for many years, and in recent weeks the cost of Government borrowing has fallen below 1% across all maturities. In the years after the financial crisis, many expected interest rates to swiftly rise to pre-crisis levels, but structural factors have kept interest rates low, not just in the UK but across the developed world, increasing our confidence that we will be able to continue to see low rates for a number of years. So it is my judgment today that with a strong fiscal position and record low cost of borrowing, we can invest more in our growing economy.
That does not mean that we can borrow more for ever and ever. The sustainability of our public finances depends on wider factors, not just the cost of borrowing: our population is ageing; the global economy is slowing; the challenge of decarbonisation is real. So we will not be writing blank cheques, unlike Labour. We will not be able to afford everything, and we will need to prioritise investment in policies that deliver real productivity gains and boost economic growth in the long term. We will still need to make difficult choices about our national priorities, within a clear set of rules, to anchor our fiscal policy and keep control of our national debt. So today I can announce that ahead of the Budget later this year I will review our fiscal framework to ensure that it meets the economic priorities of today, not of a decade ago.
The first priority of our new economic plan will be to rebuild our national infrastructure. High-quality and reliable infrastructure is essential to how we live, work and travel, but the truth is that across many decades Governments of all colours have underinvested in infrastructure. The quality of our infrastructure means that we have fallen behind our competitors. We are the fifth largest economy in the world. It is not good enough that we are so far behind on infrastructure. It is not good enough that so many commuters spend their morning staring at a “Delayed” sign at their train platform. It is not good enough that our small business owners waste so much time because of slow internet speeds and poor mobile communications. We are going to change that. We want faster broadband for everyone in the country, quicker mobile connections and better signal coverage, cleaner energy, greener transport, and more affordable fuel bills for our homes and offices. We want more trains and buses to connect the great cities of the north. We want to build world-class schools and hospitals. We want to push the frontiers of science and technology and turbocharge our ambition on research and development. We want to build and invest in every region and every nation of this great United Kingdom. From the motor highway to the information highway, we will settle for nothing less than an infrastructure revolution.
To keep spending under control, we will of course set a high bar for funding projects. They will have to show real value for money with credible delivery plans and budgets, starting with the Government’s rapid review of HS2. We will target that investment at national priorities like regional growth and decarbonisation. Let me take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for her tireless work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on infrastructure. So yes, we will use the Government’s resources to kickstart the infrastructure revolution, but we will also do more to give private investors the confidence to back these projects too. We want all this to be underpinned by strong, independent institutions. We set up the National Infrastructure Commission in 2015, and we will continue to rely on its expert advice as we look carefully at other institutional reforms that might be needed. So our infrastructure revolution will be strategic and carefully planned.
Speaking of revolutionaries, let us contrast that with Labour’s approach. I will invest in new infrastructure that will grow the economy, and Labour will borrow hundreds of millions to renationalise unproductive assets and then run them into the ground. The choice for the  country is clear, between a wasteful ideological Opposition with outdated ideas and a Government who will kick start a decade of renewal for this country.
Today we lay the foundations of a new economic plan. We are turning the page on a decade of necessary work to fix the public finances and writing a new chapter in our public services. Health and Education are not just the names of Departments; they are lifelines of opportunities, just as they were for me when I was growing up: the teachers and lecturers who persuaded me to study economics in the first place—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There will be ample opportunity for colleagues to question the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the statement must be heard.

Sajid Javid: Health and education are lifelines of opportunities, just as they were for me when I was growing up: the teachers and lecturers who persuaded me to study economics in the first place; the police officers who kept us safe when the street I grew up in became a centre for drug dealers; the NHS that cared for my dad in his final days. These are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; these are the beating heart of our country, and we invest to support them today.
As I turn to the details of today’s announcement—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Wait—it is coming. Let me first thank the dedicated officials in the Treasury for all their hard work delivering what I am told is the fastest SR in history. Let me particularly thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), who takes the approach to spending you would expect from an adopted Yorkshireman. He has displayed his typical mix of energy, courtesy and rigour. Let me just say that there is no productivity problem in the Chief Secretary’s office.
Next year, I will add £13.4 billion to the plans for total public spending, including £1.7 billion pounds added to capital spending. These extra funds take the real increase in day-to-day spending to £13.8 billion pounds, or 4.1%. That means I am delivering the fastest increase in day-to-day spending for 15 years. That funding allows us to start a new chapter for our public services and to fund the people’s priorities. Our decisions today have been guided by our ambition to build a safer Britain, a healthier Britain, a better educated Britain and a more global Britain.
My family grew up on a road in Bristol that a national newspaper described back then as Britain’s most dangerous street, but to us it was just home. After we left, my brother became a policeman and has been in the force for over 25 years. I have seen the impact the job has on the lives of those who are courageous enough to do it. So today I pay tribute to the bravery, courage and dedication of our hard-working police officers. As Home Secretary, I saw first-hand how the demands on our police forces are changing and increasing. Yes, traditional crime is down by a third since 2010, but the threats from terrorism have escalated and evolved. The internet is changing how criminals operate and break the law, and we have seen too many horrifying stabbings on Britain’s streets. With our frontline officers reporting that they are overstretched, it is clearly time to act and do more.
Today I can announce a 6.3% real-terms increase in Home Office spending—the biggest increase in 15 years. That means £750 million to fund the first year of our  plan to recruit 20,000 new police officers, with an extra £45 million this year, so that recruitment can start immediately, getting the first 2,000 officers in place by the end of March. Let me thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and my hon. Friends the Members for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely), for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and for Telford (Lucy Allan) for championing the police and police resourcing,
The threats facing our police officers are evolving too, so the way we resource them will have to evolve in three areas. First, serious and organised crime is the most deadly national threat faced by the UK, costing the nation at least £37 billion a year. The scale and complexity of this threat means that we need to do more to develop our response, so I am announcing today a formal review to identify the powers, capabilities, governance and funding needed ahead of a full spending review next year.
Secondly, this year sadly has seen more attacks on places of worship, including mosques and synagogues. That is unacceptable in a diverse, open, tolerant society like ours. To protect our religious and minority communities, I am announcing today that I will double the places of worship fund next year. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon (Dr Offord) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) for their tireless work in combating hate crime. I am also today announcing £30 million of new funding to tackle the scourge of online child sexual exploitation.
A better resourced police force will deliver better outcomes for the British people, and it will increase the demands on our already overstretched criminal justice system. So today we invest more in our criminal justice system to manage that increasing demand, with a 5% real-terms increase in the resource budget for the Ministry of Justice, an increase in its capital budget to £620 million next year and an extra £80 million for the Crown Prosecution Service. Taken together, today’s spending round will dramatically improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, with more prosecutors, a reformed probation system, better security in prisons and funding to begin delivery of 10,000 new prison places.
The spending round is delivering on the people’s priorities, and there is no higher priority than the NHS. Last year, we increased NHS spending by an extra £34 billion a year by 2023-24. That was the single largest cash increase in our public services for more than 70 years. Today, we reaffirm our commitment to the NHS with a £6.2 billion increase in NHS funding next year. We are investing more in training and professional development for our doctors and nurses, and over £2 billion of new capital funding, starting with an upgrade of 20 hospitals this year, and £250 million for groundbreaking new artificial intelligence technologies to help solve some of healthcare’s biggest challenges today, such as easier cancer detection, discovering new treatments and relieving the workload on doctors and nurses.
We cannot have an effective health system without an effective social care system too. The Prime Minister has committed to a clear plan to fix social care and give every older person the dignity and security that they deserve. I can announce today that councils will have  access to new funding of £1.5 billion for social care next year. Alongside the largest increase in local government spending power since 2010, and on top of the existing £2.5 billion of social care grants, that is a solid foundation to protect the stability of the system next year and a down payment on the more fundamental reforms that the Prime Minister will set out in due course.
But that is not the only action I am taking today to support vulnerable people. On any given night, there are too many people sleeping rough on our streets. The human cost is too high. Today we do more, with £54 million of new funding to reduce homelessness and rough sleeping, taking total funding to £422 million next year. That is a real-terms increase of 13%. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his tireless work in fighting homelessness.
A healthy environment is a precondition for a healthy population, and that is why we have set out an ambitious 25-year plan for the UK’s natural environment. Today we go further. Leaving the EU provides an opportunity to set world-leading environmental standards, and we are giving the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs £432 million of funding to do so. We are providing £30 million of new money to tackle the crisis in our air quality and another £30 million for biodiversity, including the expansion of our Blue Belt programme—a vital part of our campaign to protect precious marine species such as turtles, whales and seabirds. We are stepping up our leadership on climate change, with new funding for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to develop new programmes to help meet our net zero commitment by 2050, and we will set out further details of our plans for decarbonisation in the infrastructure strategy later this year, keeping our promise to be the first Government in history to leave our environment in a better condition than we found it.
Alongside providing for the health of our population, the most important task of a Government is to educate the next generation. Education and skills are at the heart of our vision for national renewal. The economy is not just about GDP or PSNB—there are many broader tests that matter too. Are children growing up to be better off than their parents? Do hard work and talent matter more than where you are born? A good school and inspirational teachers are the most effective engine for social mobility. That is why today we are delivering on our pledge to increase school spending by £7.1 billion by 2022-23, compared with this year.
Next year, we will make sure that day-to-day funding for every school can rise at least in line with inflation and rising pupil numbers, with the schools that have been historically underfunded benefiting the most. Every secondary school will be allocated a minimum of £5,000 for every pupil next year, and every primary school will be allocated at least £3,750 per pupil, on track to reach £4,000 per pupil the following year. This funding will mean that teachers’ starting salaries can rise to £30,000 by 2022-23, so that we can attract more of the best graduates into teaching. We have allocated nearly £1.5 billion per year to contribute to teachers’ pensions, and we are providing over £700 million to give more support to children and young people with special educational needs—an 11% increase compared with last year.
Nearly every other Department I am announcing today will be funded for just one year, but we recognise the importance of schools being able to plan, so we are announcing today a full three-year resource settlement for schools, levelling up education, improving standards and giving every young person the same opportunities in life wherever they live in our great country. Let me particularly thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and for St Albans (Mrs Main) for championing schools.
The education system is about more than just schools. For too long, further education has been a forgotten sector. Over 1 million young people continue their education beyond the age of 16 at colleges or sixth-forms—and I know because I was one of them. I went to my local FE college. If I had not had the teachers and the lecturers that I did, I would not be standing here today as Chancellor. Further education transformed my life, and today we start transforming further education, with a £400 million increase in 16-to-19 education funding next year. The base rate will increase to £4,188, a faster rate of growth than in core school funding. Let me congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on their representations on further education.
The Government will also increase early years spending by £66 million to increase the hourly rate that is being paid at maintained nursery schools and other childcare providers that deliver the Government’s free childcare offer. I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for raising this issue with me.
Our young people deserve high-quality services and support even after the school day is over. Earlier this year, following a recommendation from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), I visited the fantastic OnSide youth zone in Barking. It was a brilliant example of how much Britain’s network of youth centres adds to their local communities, getting young people off the streets and changing lives for the better. Today, I am asking the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to develop proposals for a new youth investment fund, and to set out plans to build more youth centres, refurbish existing centres and deliver high-quality services to young people across the country.
Better schools, higher pay for teachers, more youth centres—that is how this Government will improve social justice and create opportunity for all, but our ambitions for a truly national renewal do not stop there. We are a one nation party and this is a one nation Government, so at the heart of our new economic plan is the need to level up across this country. Every region and nation in the United Kingdom will benefit from the new funding I am providing today for the police, schools, health and social care, and much more. Today, we confirm funding of £3.6 billion for the new towns fund, providing a wave of investment to our regions and places, and better transport links across the country will be a crucial part of levelling up across the nation. We have already allocated a total of £13 billion for better transport across the north. We will fund the Manchester to Leeds route of Northern Powerhouse Rail, and we will set out more details—far more details—in the autumn on our new infrastructure strategy.
Mr Speaker, you may not know this, but my dad was a bus driver. Having watched him work, I know that local buses can be a lifeline for many communities. Today, we put the wheels back on the great British bus, with more than £200 million to transform bus services across the country. We are funding ultra low emissions buses, and we will trial new on-demand services to respond to passenger needs in real time. We will set out more details of our new buses in due course—once my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has finished painting models of them.
Our new economic plan will not stop at the borders of England; it will be a plan for all the nations of the United Kingdom. In Scotland, decisions taken in today’s spending round will provide over £1.2 billion of extra funding for next year. We are taking a further step today to support Scottish farmers. In 2013, when the UK Government allocated common agricultural policy funding within the UK, Scottish farmers lost out. Today, we correct that decision, making available an extra £160 million for Scottish farmers—something I know my hon. Friends from Scotland on the Conservative Benches will be pleased to hear. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank my friend Ruth Davidson for everything she has done for that great nation.
In Wales, today’s spending round means an extra £600 million of funding for the Welsh Government. In Northern Ireland, we are providing an extra £400 million from today’s announcements. I welcome the case that has been made by the DUP for improved hospice care and for support for those who have been tragically wronged in the contaminated blood scandal. Those are rightly devolved matters, but I sincerely hope that the Northern Ireland Administration will use some of the new funding that we are providing today to address those issues. Taken together, today’s announcements will give the devolved Administrations the biggest spending settlement for a decade.
Throughout our history, Britain has always been at its best when we are open, global and outward looking. Trading with the world beyond our shores has always been key to Britain’s economic prosperity. As we seize the opportunities of Brexit, we can establish new partnerships and trade relationships across the globe. For too long, we have let those trading relationships wither. As my right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary would be the first to acknowledge, this is a disgrace. Today, we invest in securing Britain’s influence in the world. We support diplomacy, with £90 million of funding for 1,000 new diplomats and overseas staff, and 14 new and upgraded diplomatic posts. We will boost trade with £60 million to extend the GREAT campaign for next year.
If hon. Members are in any doubt about Britain’s important role on the world stage, they should just look at the bonanza of international festivals and events that I am funding today. In December, we will welcome the NATO leaders meeting. Next year, we will host the COP 26 discussions, if our bid is successful, thanks to the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry). In 2021, we will host the G7, and in 2022, we will host the Commonwealth games in Birmingham. Today, I can confirm the Government’s total commitment to this celebration of sport will be over half a billion pounds. The games will be a huge  boost for the west midlands, and I would like to congratulate Andy Street on the leadership he has shown in that region.
One of my personal highlights of the summer was meeting the England cricket team in the Downing Street gardens. That world cup winning side showed us the importance not just of talent and hard work, but of diversity—a skipper from Ireland, a bowler from Barbados and an all-rounder from New Zealand. As with our cricket team, so with our country: we are the most successful multi-ethnic democracy in the world. I am proud to live in a country where someone with my background can be Chancellor of the Exchequer. This spending round embraces modern Britain in all its diversity. We make available today an additional £10 million to continue the integration areas programme that I first announced in 2018 as Communities Secretary. That fund will continue to support thousands of the estimated 1 million adults in the UK who do not speak English well or at all.
Openness to talent from around the world matters for our economy, too. Once we have left the EU, we will be able to create a points-based immigration system that meets the needs of the UK economy and the British people. We have already dropped arbitrary immigration targets. We have recently announced a new, highly flexible fast-track visa for scientists. Today, I am putting funding in place to give victims of the Windrush scandal the compensation that they deserve. This is all part of confirming, once and for all, that Britain will always be open to the world’s brightest and best talent.
Nowhere are our values of openness and tolerance better expressed than in international aid. The UK aid logo can be seen around the world—on health clinics, school books, emergency food suppliers. Today, we protect our commitment to spending 0.7% of our national income on aid.
Global Britain is about projecting our values into the world, but we know that hard power matters, too. Britain already spends more on our defence and national security than any other country in Europe. We are one of only seven countries to meet the 2% commitment to NATO. Today, we go further still, with an additional £2.2 billion of funding for the Ministry of Defence—a real-terms increase of 2.6% for the budget next year—increasing again the share of our national income we spend on defence and national security.
This year is the 75th anniversary of the D-day landings. We pay tribute to the sacrifices of the extraordinary generation of British soldiers who fought and died during that campaign. Today, I can announce £7 million of funding for the Normandy Memorial Trust to complete its memorial overlooking Gold beach, where so many troops came ashore. We will also support the veterans of today’s wars, as we confirm the funding today for the new Office for Veterans’ Affairs. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) on his tireless work in championing veterans.
I have set out today a big increase in public spending that will pay for more police and safer prisons, more nurses and better hospitals, and more money for schools and further education. I now turn to the remaining Departments across Whitehall, those that have not been   protected over the last decade. Investing in the people’s priorities inevitably means difficult decisions elsewhere. Every spending review presented to this House over the past 15 years has had to find cuts from those Departments. This party has never shied away from taking the difficult decisions to make sure that we live within our means. Those decisions were tough, but they have paid off, so I can announce today that no Department will be cut next year. Every single Department has had its budget for day-to-day spending increased at least in line with inflation. That is what I mean by the end of austerity: Britain’s hard work paying off, and our country living within its means and able to spend more on the things that matter.
I am delivering today’s spending round in unusual circumstances. Understandably, much of our attention and the attention of the country is focused on the important matters before the House later today, but we must not forget that Brexit is not all that matters to the British people; it is not the only topic at the dinner table. Today’s spending round ensures that if you fall ill, you can get the care and support that you need; that when you drop off your child at the school gates, you can trust that they will get the best possible education; and that when you walk down the street, you can feel safe and secure. Today, we move from a decade of recovery to a decade of renewal. Yes, we will keep control of the public finances, but we will invest, too, in the long-term growth of this country.
It was just six weeks ago today that this new Administration took office. The Prime Minister promised that we would not wait until Brexit day to deliver on the people’s priorities, and today we meet that promise with a new chapter for our public services, a new plan for our economy and a new beginning for this country. I commend this statement to the House.

John Martin McDonnell: I welcome the Chancellor to his new job, although, after that, I am beginning to miss the old one. I believe the Chancellor may be the first person to hold that role whose father—like my own—was a bus driver. I would like to welcome him to his new job. I also hope that what they say is true: you wait ages for one son of a bus driver to become Chancellor of the Exchequer, only for them to be followed soon after by another.
I am afraid that that is probably the end of what the Chancellor and I have in common. I thank him for abiding by the convention of providing me with a copy of his statement. It was a compendium of meaningless platitudes. I ask him to take a message back to the person who obviously drafted the statement. Could he tell Mr Cummings, the man who cancels the Chancellor’s own speeches, sacks his staff without telling him and then has them—

Boris Johnson: You don’t like spending on education?

John Martin McDonnell: Mr Speaker, I believe that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge is shouting at me. The last time he was shouting at someone, they had to call the police. I do not think we need to go as far as that. Mr Cummings, who had the member of staff escorted—[Interruption.]. You might need to call the police.

John Bercow: Order. Calm must descend on the Chamber. People should try to operate at the level of events and, in all parts of the House, at the level of their important responsibilities as Members of the House.

John Martin McDonnell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member of staff was escorted off the premises by an armed police officer. Can I just say that that is no way to treat a member of staff? I ask the Chancellor to tell Mr Cummings, on the spending review: do not insult the intelligence of the British people. The people will see today’s statement as the grubby electioneering that it is.
This is not a spending review as we know it. This is straight out of the Lynton Crosby handbook of opinion-poll politics. The Tories have checked what the top three or four issues in the polls are and they have cynically judged how little money they have to throw around to try to neutralise those issues and the concerns of people. To come here and try to fool us with references to people’s priorities is beyond irony.
When did this extremist, right-wing Tory group ever put the people first—ever? Were they putting the people first when they froze child benefit year after year or when they introduced universal credit, a brutal regime? The result this summer, according to the Childhood Trust, was children scavenging for food in bins because they did not have free school meals in the summer holidays. Were they putting people first when they cut council budgets, and prevented 1 million elderly and disabled people from getting the social care they needed? Were they putting people first when they cut social services budgets so much that we now have record numbers of children coming into care and 155 women a day turned away from refuges?
We are expected to believe that these Tories, who for years have voted for harsh, brutal austerity, have had some form of damascene conversion. I tell you, they treat our people with contempt. Announcements have been dripped out over the last week or so, all designed to give the impression of a spending spree—announcements dictated by No. 10 and meekly accepted by a Chancellor too weak to conduct a full multi-year spending review as he should, even before the Government’s majority disappeared yesterday.
We have seen the so-called headroom, which the Chancellor’s predecessor had claimed was needed to prepare for a no-deal Brexit, spent instead on preparing for a general election. We all know that the Chancellor may not be in his job very long and maybe that is why he felt he needed to rush a spending round based on figures from March, rather than wait for the Office for Budget Responsibility to tell him officially what the rest of us have known for some time: that the economy, after nine years of Tory austerity, is in bad shape and, yes, is getting worse, stagnating.
A full fiscal event would have meant new economic forecasts and the need for a fiscal framework to give Departments security over the Parliament, allowing them to plan ahead after years of cuts. Instead we get this sham of a spending review. The Tories are claiming to be against austerity after years of voting for it. They are claiming to be using headroom, which the Chancellor knows has largely disappeared, yet they are still failing to deliver a real end to austerity.
Let us take a look at some of the announcements that the Chancellor has confirmed today. For schools, the Chancellor announced new spending of £1.8 billion next year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has previously estimated that it would cost £3.8 billion this year alone to reverse the cuts that have been made. Was the Chancellor aware, when drawing up his spending plans, that the Department for Education budget as a whole has been slashed by almost £10 billion in real terms since 2010? The reality is this, is it not: heads will still be sending out begging letters and teachers will still be buying basic materials for their classes?
The Government have some front to mention childcare after hundreds of Sure Start centres closed on their watch, undermining the start in life for our children. They mention that £700 million was announced for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Does the Chancellor know that the Local Government Association found that councils already face a funding shortfall for SEN children of £1.2 billion by 2021? The reality is that these children will still be left vulnerable and in need, with their futures in jeopardy. That is what it means today.
Further education colleges are getting a one-off £400 million. Does the Chancellor really think that they should be grateful when he has cut £3.3 billion from them since 2010? The reality is that the economy will continue to desperately need skills and training, and our young people will still be denied them.
On the NHS, the announcement of £1.8 billion spending for the NHS has already been exposed as largely a reannouncement of existing money. There is no mention, is there, of the £6 billion backlog in the maintenance we need in our hospitals? Our hospitals are still using buckets to catch water coming through leaking roofs. Operating theatres are closed because of the lack of maintenance over the past nine years of austerity. The Government mention GP waiting times. Any announcement on GP waiting times is likely to turn out to be totally undeliverable. Why? Because we have just lost 600 full-time equivalent GPs over the past year. They are just not there because of nine years of lack of investment.
On local government, any new money for local government today will be a drop in the ocean compared with the 60% funding cuts that councils have suffered in recent years. What effect does the Chancellor estimate his announcement today will have, for example, on the crisis in children’s services that we have highlighted at every spending review and budget over the past two years? There has been a 29% drop in Government funding after eight years and as a result vulnerable children are left at risk.
On homelessness, the Chancellor mentioned £54 million of additional spending to tackle homelessness. There has been a 160% increase in people sleeping rough. In the past two years, people have died near the doors of Parliament. The LGA says that there is a £100 million spending gap just to get by. The most vulnerable in our society have been put at risk as a result of the Government’s austerity over nine years, and he expects us to celebrate an inadequate attempt to plaster over the problems we have.
On bus services, the Chancellor mentions £200 million allocated to them. That is a third of the £645 million that has been cut from bus services since 2010.
The Government seem to forget that they cut 20,000 police officers. The Chancellor expects us to celebrate what he has announced today, when we now know that at best there will be only 13,000 on the streets. Can he tell us how many will be frontline? We will support him in the investment to protect religious establishments and communities, and we will support him in tackling the problem of protecting young children from online abuse—of course we will—but the real protection comes from the safer neighbourhood teams that we constructed under Labour and that we had in every one of our wards, with a sergeant, police officers and police support officers, all of whom have been wiped out. [Interruption.] An hon. Member shouts, “Not true.” He needs to go out into the community and talk about the increase in violent crime in our communities as a result of what has happened.
The Chancellor spoke of money to create another 10,000 prison places. Can he just tell us: are they the same 10,000 prison places promised by previous Justice Secretaries in 2016, 2017 and yet again in 2018? Can he answer how many suicides and how many assaults on staff have taken place because of the Government’s cuts to prison staff over the past nine years? Will he, or someone in the Government, ever apologise to the Prison Officers Association for ignoring its warnings about the effect of staff cuts on safety in our prisons?
Those are just some of the announcements we heard today, but there are many that we have heard very little about. What about those who have been effectively forgotten in the Chancellor’s opportunist, one-year spending round? What about real structural reform to address the social care crisis, which we have been waiting for, for how many years—three, four? All we have now is a sticking plaster of £1 billion, which will leave this sector in the same sorry state as it is in now. What does that mean in real terms? It means 1.4 million people not getting the care they need and 87 people a day dying before they get the social care they need to support them.
I understand that the Chancellor’s mates, the bankers, were pushing the other day for more tax cuts and less regulation. I suppose they think they have a soft touch in No. 10 and No. 11. I hope he sent them packing. When we compare how much has been cut from the basic social services that we and vulnerable people need for support, with what is calculated to be, by the end of the next couple of years, £110 billion given out in tax cuts to corporations, we can see why people do not believe the Government have any concept of social justice or equality. Does the Chancellor have any words for the thousands suffering—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) said, “Pathetic.” I’ll tell you what develops real pathos. Many of us in our constituency surgeries are having to deal with people who are dependent on universal credit. Yet the Chancellor did not have any words for the thousands who are suffering from the brutal roll-out of universal credit—the people we represent who are now queueing up at food banks as a result of the cuts. Traditionally, the spending review concentrates on departmental expenditure limits, rather than social security. I appreciate that. But there was no reason why the Chancellor could not have signalled the Government’s  intent at least to end the misery and hardship that their policy is causing and to end the roll-out of universal credit as it now is.
Most shockingly, the Chancellor has given no sign that he understands the scale of the climate emergency facing us and the urgency of the significant Government response that is needed. He mentions the climate but allocates minuscule amounts of funding to address an existential threat to our society. I hope that in the next few weeks Members will remember those who got no comfort from today’s announcements, if the Government push ahead with their plans for tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy, as is widely rumoured. I hope that Members will remember all those individuals and services that were deemed too unimportant by the Chancellor to address today. I tell him that whenever that election comes—in any election campaign—he can be sure that the Labour party will remind those people and the voters what nine years of austerity have done to them, and of today’s failure to act. The opportunity was there today really to end austerity—to start reversing austerity—and to give people some hope. What a missed opportunity.
We remember when we were told that there was no alternative, and that there was no money. We all know the lines—we have heard them enough times. They were not true then and they are not true now. The majority of economists have always agreed that there was another approach that the Government could have taken, rather than austerity, and we always argued—and we were right—that austerity was a political choice, not an economic necessity. As recently as March, the Conservatives ploughed on, saying that there was no alternative. Look at them now suddenly proclaiming an end to austerity—after 125,000 excess deaths as a result, after £100 billion has been taken out of the economy, and after the worst decade for wage growth since the 19th century—just because there may be an election around the corner. After all that, to deliver a pathetic sum to spending Departments, who are on their knees at the moment, is just adding insult to injury.
This is a Government that is not just callous and uncaring, but hypocritical as well. This is not a Government—it is a racket. They pretend to end austerity when they do nothing of the sort. They pretend to plan ahead while they plot a no-deal Brexit that would devastate parts of our economy. They are a Chancellor and a Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said yesterday, with no mandate, no morals and no majority. They are trying to distract us from the crumbling public services and stagnating wages that they have created after a decade in charge. It is almost as if they forget they have been in government for nine years. They seek to fool the British public with fantasy promises of a Brexit deal that they knew they could not deliver and they were not even trying to negotiate. This short-lived Government will go down in history for its unique combination of right-wing extremism and bumbling incompetence. This is a Government that betrays the people it is meant to serve—a Government that will never be forgiven, but will soon be forgotten.

Sajid Javid: At least the shadow Chancellor did not try to throw a little red book at me this time. He attacks the decisions that were made over the last decade to restore the nation’s finances. He attacks the same free  enterprise system that has delivered the prosperity that our nation enjoys. He refuses to understand that a strong economy is absolutely necessary to pay for public services.
Why have we made these decisions over the last decade that get us to where we are now, where we can properly end austerity for good? Labour trashed the economy the last time it was in power, like it always does. The shadow Chancellor talked about cuts that were made to public services over the last decade. Let us just remember what we inherited—the absolute mess that we inherited—in 2010: a deficit that was 10% of GDP, with £150 billion in borrowing in that year. It was the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history and the biggest budget deficit of any large industrialised nation. Labour was borrowing £5,000 a second. There was the deepest recession that we had seen in almost 100 years. The shadow Chancellor talked about the bankers. Which Government gave us the biggest banking bailout in global history? It was the last Labour Government. That was our inheritance.
It was absolutely clear that had that unsustainable rate of spending continued, with no link between what was coming in and what was going out, the country would have gone bankrupt, just like it did with Labour in the past, when we had to go cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund. That is the legacy of every Labour Government. It took Conservatives to clear up Labour’s mess, bringing the deficit under control, bringing debt under control—having it falling for the first time in a generation in terms of the proportion of national income—reducing taxes for 40 million people and backing millions of businesses. And we have had a jobs miracle, with more people employed today in Britain than at any other time in our history and the lowest unemployment rate since 1975.
The shadow Chancellor talked about the impact of our policies on economic growth. Let me tell him about the impact on economic growth: since 2010, since the Conservatives were back in office, our economy has grown by 18.7%—faster than the economies of France, Italy and Japan. I will tell him about the risk to the economy—the only risk to the economy is from the shadow Chancellor, his policies and the entire Labour party. They have a tax hike for everyone. They have a tax hike if you happen to own a garden, if you want to give a gift to someone, if you want to go on holiday, if you own a home—whoever you are, they have a tax hike for you. They want to raid private pensions. Just this week, we learned more about their plans. They want to confiscate 10% of almost all our large companies. That is £300 billion that they want to confiscate from pensioners’ private plans. They also want to renationalise industries—is it seven, eight or nine? I do not know how many industries they want to renationalise—

John Bercow: Order. Please resume your seat, Chancellor of the Exchequer. I gently point out that there is a difference—long understood and observed—between a debate, in which there is a free play of arguments, ideas and commentary on policies, and a statement. The Chancellor, with a little encouragement from me, delivered a statement and he has been questioned on the statement. To the questions, he is supposed to provide replies. This is not an occasion for a general political debate—[Interruption.] No, I know exactly what the situation is and I have very much more experience of these matters  than some of the people who think that they can criticise, so I do know what I am doing. The answer is to provide the answers to the questions—[Interruption.] Order. Provide the answers to the questions and then other colleagues will have the opportunity to question the Chancellor. It requires just a little versatility on one’s feet.

Sajid Javid: I have to say, Mr Speaker, I did not detect many questions, so I will finish very quickly to give an opportunity for Members to ask proper questions.
The simple truth is that Labour is unfit to govern. It would not deliver Brexit. It would wreck our economy over again. Hard-working families will pay the price and we will not let it happen.

Kenneth Clarke: I genuinely welcome my right hon. Friend to his appointment and congratulate him on it, and I sincerely wish him every success in carrying out his extremely important duties. I also welcome the many spending announcements he made. In particular, I single out further education, to which successive Governments have been trying to give better priority for the last 30 or 40 years. I hope that it shows in effect. Will he reassure me that the announcements that he has made are consistent with the fiscal rules of his predecessors, that we are still subject to the same limits on the deficit that were laid down, and that he is still aiming to achieve year-by-year reductions in debt as a proportion of GDP? If he can give me those assurances, it demonstrates what he has just said: that he is able to make these welcome announcements because austerity has been brought to an end by the achievements of his two predecessors over the last nine years.

Sajid Javid: I welcome the warm words of my right hon. and learned Friend. I remember all the excellent work he did when he held this position and I hope that I can learn from the way in which he performed his duties as Chancellor.
My right hon. and learned Friend asks me a specific question about the fiscal rules. This spending round is within the current fiscal rules. According to our forecasts, we expect to meet both the key rules of borrowing staying inside 2% of GDP and seeing a further fall in debt as a proportion of GDP. I would, however, point him to some of the other comments I made in my statement about looking again at the fiscal rules, particularly with an eye to taking advantage of record low interest rates and investing more—credibly—in an infrastructure revolution.

Kirsty Blackman: I thank the Chancellor for advance sight of the statement.
The gimmicks and gems the Chancellor has presented today are nothing more than an effort to distract us from the crippling crisis that the Government are dragging us into. If that was meant to be a pre-election Budget, if I was a Back-Bench Tory I would be quaking in my boots right now. In less than two months, we could face a no-deal Brexit, unless that threat is removed today by the House of Commons supporting the cross-party Bill to secure an extension. The threat cannot be underestimated. We are standing here facing increased uncertainty due to Brexit. The outlook for our economy and for public finances remains extremely uncertain. The economy  has already taken a hit, as we saw GDP contract 0.2% in the second quarter of 2019. As Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies put it in The Guardian,
“Making big fiscal announcements in a period of great economic uncertainty means we will have little idea how sustainable or costly decisions made this week will be. The risks are exacerbated by not having up-to-date forecasts from the OBR.”
While the Chancellor has announced increased spending today, this will not help to end austerity; it will only pause some of the hardship in the short term. Meanwhile, Brexit will bring lasting and long-term damage to our economy, and to our citizens’ livelihoods.
With the economy already faltering, the Chancellor’s predecessor has warned that a disruptive no-deal Brexit could have a £90 billion hit on the Exchequer and suggested there would be no money available. A no-deal Brexit would be devastating for Scotland, with the potential to destroy 100,000 Scottish jobs and cost every person the equivalent of £2,300 a year. Brexit caused UK manufacturing activity to contract in August for the fourth consecutive month to the lowest level since 2012. According to the BBC, sterling fell below $1.20 on 3 September to its lowest since October 2016. The Chancellor pretends his Government are putting people first, when in reality they are putting the cult of leave campaigners and their Brexit obsession before the interests of the economy and citizens.
Yesterday in Scotland the First Minister announced our programme for government, putting tackling climate change, protecting our economy and reducing inequality at the heart of our policy-making agenda. Here we are talking about food and medicine shortages, reducing opportunities for our young people and complete Brexit chaos. For the people of Scotland, this is a tale of two Governments, and only the SNP Scottish Government are acting in our interests.
The IFS is clear that pre-election bribes do not mean an end to austerity—that decade of austerity that cumulatively cut the Scottish block grant by more than £12 billion in real terms, left people having to choose between heating their homes and feeding their children and reduced social security payments for disabled people four times faster than the cuts for others.
If the Tories seriously wanted to make life better for citizens, they would give Scotland its fair share. This means the Chancellor should repay the £140 million of VAT owed to Police Scotland in refunds. We have been arguing for years for the convergence uplift moneys to be returned. There are 50 mentions of it in Hansard, 45 of them from the SNP, and most of the others in response to SNP questions. I am pleased with the pressure that we and our colleagues in the Scottish Government have brought to bear on this Government. It also means that Scotland must get its £3.4 billion share of the DUP’s dirty deal Brexit bung. Will the Chancellor rule out any new confidence and supply agreement with the DUP that would give them more money before we get the £3.4 billion we are owed?
Furthermore, it would appear that the Chancellor will overshoot his Government’s borrowing targets. Will he confirm that, and will he tell the House what borrowing rule changes he will introduce in the Budget? Will he guarantee that Scotland will not lose any of the EU funding   it currently receives? The UK Government must, at the very least, match the compensation scheme already put in place by the EU and the Irish Government for the beef and suckler sectors in Ireland.
Finally, the Government must scrap the proposed £30,000 salary limit on foreign nationals entering the UK. Scottish Government analysis has found the average EU citizen in Scotland adds £10,400 to Government revenue and £34,400 to GDP each year. The proposed £30,000 salary limit on foreign nationals to the UK has been shown to be unworkable and should be scrapped. While the Tories balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged, the SNP Scottish Government are leading the way to deliver a fairer Scotland.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady complains about the settlement with respect to Scotland. I remind her that, under the Barnett block grant, Scotland will see an increase of £1.2 billion in its spending power next year. On top of that, it will receive an additional £160 million for Scottish farmers, thanks to the representations of Scottish Tory MPs, who seem to actually care about Scottish farmers. Despite that, she complains.
The hon. Lady talked about uncertainty. I would have thought, therefore, that she would have welcomed today’s statement. I think she referred to it as a Budget. First, there is a spending round, which is focused only on spending, not taxes or capital investment, and designed to give certainty to all Departments across Government on funding for the next year. Without it, they would not have that certainty. She claimed that Brexit uncertainty was damaging the economy. Need I remind her that, since the referendum, we have had record growth in British businesses, record growth in jobs—almost 1,000 new jobs created a day, with more people employed today than ever before—and record inward investment? If she wants to end uncertainty, she should support this spending round and make sure we leave the EU on 31 October.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. There is extensive interest in the Chancellor’s statement, but I remind the House that there is a ten-minute rule motion to follow and other important business that must come onstream absolutely no later than 3 o’clock, and that therefore there is a premium on brevity from Back and Front Benches alike. I also make the obvious point that realistically lots of people who want to contribute will not have the opportunity to do so.

John Redwood: Wokingham and West Berkshire Councils need money for social care and schools. The current funding is not adequate. I am grateful to the Chancellor. This is very welcome. Does he agree that, at a time of world slowdown, led by a manufacturing recession in several leading countries, a boost to the economy is much needed here and that this is part of that boost?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience. I very much agree that one of the outcomes of today’s spending round will be a further confidence boost to our economy.

Alison McGovern: The Chancellor claims that this is a boom in public spending, but we all know how big the bust has been, and nowhere has it been bigger than in DWP spending. Its spending will see a real-terms rise of 1.9%, which is welcome, but I ask the Chancellor: taking into account increases in the state pension and population increases, will he commit to no further cuts within that budget to working-age benefits?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady will know that this spending round covers day-to-day departmental spending and that the vast majority of DWP spending is not covered by day-to-day spending. So, when we get to a Budget, we can say much more about DWP spending. She will also recognise that this spending round will help more vulnerable people by protecting our economy and making sure it continues to grow and to generate jobs, which is the best way out of poverty.

Michael Fallon: I welcome the increase in defence spending, which is well justified by the increase in the threats that the country faces. However, can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that any revision of the fiscal rules will never make the Government vulnerable to the charges of fudged targets, reference periods and spending classifications that characterised the last Labour Government?

Sajid Javid: I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for the increase in defence spending and I can give him that assurance. When the fiscal rules are looked at in time for the next Budget, that will be done openly, transparently and clearly, which is exactly what is needed to maintain market confidence.

Edward Davey: I welcome the Chancellor to his post, but is it not the case that headteachers, chief constables and NHS managers simply cannot rely on his fancy figures if Britain crashes out of the EU?
The independent watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility, said just two months ago that a no-deal-Brexit would add £30 billion a year to public borrowing for the next four years. What insurance has the Chancellor taken out against that massive risk to his spending plans? Is this not just a con?

Sajid Javid: The right hon. Gentleman should know that the Government have no plans to—as he puts it—crash out of the EU. Our plan is to get a deal and, if he wants to help us to get a deal, he should not vote for the surrender Bill tonight.

Justine Greening: The real revolution that Britain needs is a revolution in social mobility and equality of opportunity. I welcome the announcement of investment in schools, but may I encourage the Chancellor to revisit investment in children’s services if he really wants to close the opportunity gap? May I also encourage him to look at reform closer to home, in his own Department? The Treasury is simply not fit for purpose when it comes to understanding how to invest in Britain’s biggest asset, which is its human capital—its people.

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience and is right to highlight issues relating to children’s services. I can assure her that in the numbers that I have given today she will see, beyond the excellent investment in schools, investment across the board that will benefit children, especially vulnerable children, through social services in particular. She also made a good and valid point about human capital and the need to view it in a different way, and that is something that I am very interested in pursuing in the Treasury.

Wes Streeting: If Dominic Cummings had not sacked his special adviser, he might have come up with a better speech.
I note that the Chancellor did not mention the growth figures, which is not surprising given that our economy is shrinking and every major sector of it—services, manufacturing, construction—is struggling. Is it not the case that, whether we are talking about the future of those industries or the spending plans that the Chancellor has set out today, every single promise is at risk from the no-deal recession that his Government are pursuing with their reckless no-deal policy?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman claimed that I had not mentioned growth figures. There are no new growth figures today because there is no OBR forecast, but I did refer to growth: in fact, I drew attention to the IMF forecast that we would grow faster this year than France, Italy and Japan.
The hon. Gentleman also talked of the risk to the economy. The risk to the economy is the uncertainty of not leaving the EU, and we must leave by 31 October. If he wants to end that uncertainty, he knows what he must do tonight.

Kirstene Hair: I warmly welcome the spending review. I welcome the extra £1.2 billion for Scotland and the extra £160 million for our farmers, and I was delighted to note the increase in Ministry of Defence spending. I urge the SNP Scottish Government to spend that money on education, health, policing, and connectivity in my constituency. Does the Chancellor agree that what we should be doing—what the SNP should be doing—is welcoming this extra investment, which shows the strength of being part of our United Kingdom, and removing the threat of independence, which would unleash the economy in Scotland?

Sajid Javid: I agree wholeheartedly. Let me take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for—along with other Conservative colleagues—helping me to focus on the issue of Scottish farmers, which has helped to secure the £160 million. She is also right about the extra £1.2 billion for Scotland. It is a huge amount—a record amount—but, unfortunately, one thing that we can be sure of is that the SNP will waste it.

Sammy Wilson: Notwithstanding the best efforts of some Opposition Members to talk the economy down, I am glad that the Chancellor has been able to make these announcements. I welcome the £400 million for Northern Ireland, which will help us to recruit police officers, reduce waiting lists and give some relief to school budgets. Does he recognise, however, that, if he is to realise his goal of levelling growth across  the United Kingdom, much more still needs to be done to ensure that resources are sent to Northern Ireland and other regions of the United Kingdom to ensure that growth is experienced equally across the UK?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend has made an important point. I thank him for his welcome for the extra £400 million for Northern Ireland, and also for his reference to levelling growth across the country. In my statement, I referred a number of times to the need to ensure that we have growth in every part of our great United Kingdom. That will require infrastructure investment and I hope that, when I set out the infrastructure strategy later this year, he will welcome it for those reasons.

Richard Bacon: Will the Chancellor tell us when we can expect an announcement on funding for serviced plots of land?

Sajid Javid: Let me take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he has done in relation to self-build homes and more generally, in promoting easier access to homes for everyone. We are discussing that issue with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I will pursue it further and get back to him.

Rachel Reeves: I am surprised that the Chancellor has the cheek to call this a spending review because it is nothing of the sort. It is no surprise that the Office for Budget Responsibility did not dignify it with its own economic and fiscal analysis, as normally happens with spending reviews.
When the Chancellor made his three-year commitment to school spending, he said that he recognised the importance of schools’ being able to plan. May I ask him whether local authorities should also be able to plan for the future when investing in social care and youth services and tackling homelessness? If he thinks that they should be able to do that, why did they not get a three-year settlement as well?

Sajid Javid: Let me first say gently to the hon. Lady that this is a spending round. I have not referred to it as a spending review. As she may know, a spending review normally covers a number of years, whereas a spending round covers a single year. She said that I had not “dignified” it with an OBR forecast. No spending review or spending round comes with an OBR forecast; that is normally the case with a Budget, and there are two forecasts a year. I thought that she might already know that, but I am happy to let her know now. She also talked about the funding of sectors such as social care and youth services. I did refer to those: I set out plans for next year, but also plans for the future involving, for example, the new youth investment fund.

John Stevenson: The Chancellor clearly recognises the importance of growing the economy, because it is through a growing economy that we can afford public services. I understand that, with a view to achieving growth—particularly in the north—there have been discussions about the possible creation of free ports in the north of England. Carlisle Lake District Airport, which is owned by the Stobart Group and  which commenced commercial flights recently, has the ambition to create an airport free port. Would the Chancellor support that?

Sajid Javid: As my hon. Friend will know, we have accelerated our work on the free ports generally, which is being led by the Trade Secretary and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. However, I should be happy to consider a proposal for an airport free port.

Chris Bryant: Instead of wasting £4 billion on no deal, can the Chancellor just spend some money in the Rhondda, please? Just 2% of that figure would pay for finishing off the Rhondda Fach relief road, rebuilding Llyn-y-Forwyn school, buying new trains, which might actually be clean and run on time, for the Treherbert line, providing a new home for the Rhondda sea cadets, and paying for a new PET-CT scanner for south Wales.

Sajid Javid: The good news is we do not have to choose between investing in leaving the EU and investing in Rhondda or anywhere else in the country, and the reason is that, under the Conservatives, we have a strong economy. But if the Labour party were ever in charge, we would not have the money to invest anywhere.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank the Chancellor for his statement and particularly the focus on rebuilding our infrastructure. Of course he is right to ensure that it delivers value for money. May I therefore ask that he has another look at the lower Thames crossing to ensure that it is delivering value for money and that it delivers its primary aim of relieving congestion at the existing Dartford crossing?

Sajid Javid: The general point my hon. Friend makes about infrastructure and value for money is of course absolutely right, and as we spend more on infrastructure we must make sure that that principle is always maintained. He has invited me to take a further look at the lower Thames crossing. I will be happy to do that and to discuss it with him.

Caroline Lucas: The Chancellor tells us that the challenge of decarbonisation is real, as if he has only just discovered it. But we face a climate emergency, so why have we not had a spending round that would actually match that climate emergency? Green groups are urging him to commit at least 2% of GDP on immediate climate action. Is he going to do it, or is this just going to pile up with all his other broken promises?

Sajid Javid: This spending round is focused on day-to-day resource spending. The hon. Lady may know that some very important investments that will need to be made on decarbonisation will be capital investments and that is just not covered today, but that does not mean to say it is not going to happen and is not taken seriously. However, one step that we have taken today is to provide more funding to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to work with the Treasury on the decarbonisation plan to meet the net 2050 targets; there is additional funding of £30 million to work on that programme. There are also other measures I have announced today that would help—for example, the £200 million on ultra-low emission buses. I hope the hon. Lady would welcome that, too.

Alberto Costa: I welcome the Chancellor to his position. The leaders of Conservative-led Blaby District Council and Harborough District Council, both in my South Leicestershire constituency, would greatly welcome a meeting with the local government finance Minister. Will the Chancellor help to organise that, so that the Minister can discuss the additional funds that the Chancellor has announced today?

Sajid Javid: I will gladly help my hon. Friend to organise such a meeting. I will certainly speak to Ministers in the relevant Department.

Yvette Cooper: The Chancellor will know that the Select Committee on Home Affairs has called for a long time for substantial additional resources for policing and that is important, so can he confirm that the £750 million he refers to is a real-terms increase and is all central Government funding, as he will know that central Government funding for policing has been cut by £3 billion since 2010? Can he also confirm that this is not yet enough to fund the restoration of the over 20,000 police officers who have been cut since 2010, and it also does not reverse any of the cuts of 7,000 PCSOs and 5,000 specialists since 2010?

Sajid Javid: What I can confirm to the right hon. Lady, and I hope she will find this helpful, is that for the Home Office my starting point was to roll over all funding in real terms that it had received this year, so that was the baseline, which had not been done before. I added to that the extra costs that would be required, with the major cost being for the extra officers. So the real-terms increase in the Home Office budget is £800 million. That is an increase in the real-terms growth rate of 6.3%, the biggest real-terms increase in the Home Office budget in 15 years.

Edward Leigh: As we saw on the Public Accounts Committee during the Labour years, if there are rapid increases in public spending, particularly on health, they are invariably accompanied by increasing levels of unproductivity, so how is the Chancellor going to maintain his laser-like focus on economy and efficiency and ensure that a greater proportion of our spending is not sucked into administration, away from the frontline? In other words, tax and spend on its own does not work.

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. He talked about it in the context of health, but we could apply it to the spending of many other Departments. He is absolutely right that as we allocate this new spending, especially if it is multi-year funding amounting to billions of pounds, it is imperative that we make sure every penny is spent wisely. That work is done jointly with the Department, but also in a unit in the Treasury. We will have a laser-like focus on efficiency, and if we need to take action we will not hesitate.

Frank Field: The Chancellor did not mention families who are today hungry and facing destitution; those families have suffered cuts of £1,200 in benefits. What message would he like to send them today?

Sajid Javid: I will say two things on that to the right hon. Gentleman. First, as I said in reply to a previous question, for welfare and the DWP today’s settlement covers only day-to-day resource spending and, as he will know, most spending on benefits is not day-to-day resource spending. Secondly, to answer his question on how this spending round will help people in such vulnerable positions, what I have announced today underlines the fundamental economic strength, and that will bring more confidence, meaning our economy can continue to grow and continue to generate jobs—and jobs will always continue to be the best sustainable way out of poverty.

Luke Graham: I welcome the Chancellor’s statement, including the £1.2 billion extra that will be coming to Scotland, which is an increase on the real-terms increase we already received in the Budget last year. May I especially thank him for the £160 million that will be coming back to our constituencies in rural funding, which was demanded by NFU Scotland and requested by my constituents, and is delivered by the Scottish Conservatives, with his help?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is right on every count; it has been delivered by Scottish Conservatives, and may I take this opportunity to thank him for all the representations that he made to me, along with his colleagues, and for achieving this result? It just shows that Scottish Conservatives really care about their constituents, unlike the SNP.

Sarah Wollaston: This morning I met with NHS trust leaders from around the country; they painted an absolutely shocking picture of infrastructure that is crumbling, unsafe and broken. They welcome the unfreezing of £1 billion so that they can get on and fix some of that, but it does not go far enough; there is a £6 billion backlog, and they are asking for us to reach the levels of comparable countries in spending on NHS infrastructure. Will the Chancellor meet me to discuss their serious concerns and the measures that we need to take to move this forward?

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming one of the changes I made a few weeks ago, which was to unlock or bring forward £1 billion of new capital investment in our hospitals and an additional fresh £850 million on top of that to upgrade 20 hospitals. She makes an important point, but today’s announcement is about day-to-day resource spending whereas she is talking about another important area, which is capital. I will make sure she gets the meeting with Ministers she wants.

Sarah Newton: I very much welcome this additional investment in our vital public services. The “Britain’s Leading Edge” report that I helped launch in July evidenced an historical bias in the funding of our public services between England’s regions and major cities. Will my right hon. Friend use the spending review to end this bias, so that regions such as Cornwall can play their full part in the Treasury’s economic renewal plans?

Sajid Javid: I agree with my hon. Friend, and she has made this point powerfully on a number of occasions. In the past, for example, we talked about making sure that police funding reflects local need. I hope she will have noted that in my remarks today I talked a lot about levelling up across the country, whether in infrastructure investment or in investment in public services, and I can give her an assurance that Cornwall will not be left behind.

Seema Malhotra: I look forward to sharing plans for the Southern Rail access to Heathrow, which I hope will form an important part of the Chancellor’s new infrastructure strategy.
This month, Hounslow clinical commissioning group was due to present the full business case for the planned and urgently needed Heston health centre redevelopment to its governing body. However, the project is on hold after questions about whether the local improvement finance trust scheme, which was originally advised by the Department of Health and Social Care as the best-value funding option, could still go ahead following confusion around the Treasury’s policy on LIFT schemes last year. Will the Chancellor meet me to review the situation, so that we can see whether the existing plans can be approved or whether any of the alternative capital funding he has announced will be available to enable this important and urgent development to go ahead?

Sajid Javid: I will happily discuss with officials the issue that the hon. Lady has raised, and I am sure that they will be happy to meet her.

Huw Merriman: I thank the Chancellor for the extra money for local government and social care, which will prove hugely impactful for East Sussex. I should like to make particular reference to the schools spending increases. The increase to £5,000 for secondary schools and £4,000 for primary schools next year will help East Sussex schools to almost catch up with some of the wealthier parts of the country. I should also like to thank the teachers, headteachers and governors who have fought their campaign, with me, with respect, reason and absolute passion to deliver the best for their schoolchildren.

Sajid Javid: I want to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning and for the way in which he has worked with the Treasury and the Department for Education on this. I think he is referring to the f40 campaign, with which I am very familiar as a constituency MP. I am pleased that we have been able to make this huge step change in school funding, which I know has been welcomed across the country.

Meg Hillier: After all the announcements over the summer, I had hoped for more detail today. The Chancellor and his Department might have a laser-like focus, but he can rest assured that the Public Accounts Committee will be delving through these figures and holding him to account.
As others have said, the Chancellor has indicated that he is going to change the fiscal rules. We already have an 85% ratio of debt to GDP. Can he advise us of the tolerance level that he would go up to in that debt level, and is he considering increases in taxation?

Sajid Javid: I welcome the scrutiny from the hon. Lady’s very important Committee. She might not have enough time, but there is a lot of detail in the book has been published alongside my statement today. She referred to a figure of 85% for the ratio of debt to GDP. I think the last Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in March had it at 82.2% and on a declining trajectory. On the changes to the fiscal rules, I have set out that I am looking at the fiscal rules in time for the Budget. There may well be changes, but I do not want to set out what they will be today, because we have not decided.

Jeremy Lefroy: I welcome the Chancellor and his statement. Does the spending round contain any provision for the establishment of a UK development and investment bank, which I believe would be an extremely strong vehicle to make the kinds of investments that he talks about in the public and private sectors and internationally?

Sajid Javid: Today’s statement does not focus on capital, but my hon. Friend’s suggestion would certainly involve capital investment if it happened. I know that he has spoken to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury about this, and we are happy to have further discussions.

Louise Ellman: The people of Liverpool have suffered a horrific 64% cut in funding for local services. I was pleased to hear the Chancellor say this afternoon that no Department will be cut next year, but is there an absolute guarantee that Liverpool City Council will not have any real-terms reductions in its funding for local services next year? And when will he make the money available to complete the new Royal Liverpool Hospital?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady will know that local council funding will be a combination of grant funding and locally raised funding, so it is hard to say specifically what might happen to any particular council’s funding, as it will depend in large part on what that council chooses to do. However, I hope that I can give her some reassurance by telling her that, following today’s announcement, the core funding for local government next year across England will receive its highest increase in a decade.

Mary Robinson: In the north, there are 42,000 more people in work than there were a year ago, and 280 businesses are being supported through the £400 million northern powerhouse investment fund. I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of the infrastructure revolution, and indeed the acceleration of the HS3 Northern Powerhouse Rail project. Will he ensure that, throughout the next year, the northern powerhouse is kept at the heart of Government thinking on the economy and on what we can do in the north to close the productivity gap and really deliver for the country?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that guarantee. I should also like to congratulate her on the excellent work that she has done locally to bring this issue to the attention of the Treasury, especially in relation to infrastructure investment in the north. She has done a fantastic job, and I would be happy to meet her and listen to her ideas, especially on infrastructure.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, a point of which I did give notice at an earlier stage. I should, just as a courtesy, advise the House that it is the terms of the order the House of yesterday that require me to stick to time and to move on to the next business. I am genuinely sorry that some colleagues are disappointed.

COMPULSORY PURCHASE AND PLANNING

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Emma Hardy: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to grant local authorities increased powers of compulsory purchase; to amend the law relating to land valuation and compensation; to make provision requiring landowners to fulfil conditions relating to planning permission; and for connected purposes.
Mr Speaker, it will be of no surprise to you or any Member that I begin this speech by extolling Hull’s virtues. Hull is a growing, successful city that is attracting significant investment and undergoing really positive change. The council has already granted numerous housing, commercial, industrial and educational permissions, the majority of which have been implemented and are taking vital steps to secure our future. Members who were present at my Westminster Hall debate yesterday will have heard me talk about one such step: Hull’s bid to become Yorkshire’s maritime city. They will have heard me talk about the proud place that the sea plays in the history of Hull and how, for years, the shipping and deep sea trawling industries dominated our economy and their buildings stood prominently along our skyline. One such building was the Lord Line building on St Andrew’s dock, which was constructed for the Lord Line trawler fleet in 1949. The Lord Line building is locally listed and a site of personal significance to the people of Hull, as it is one of the last buildings relating to Hull’s fishing heritage. It is the site of the dock where the fishing boats used to come in and out when we were the capital city of the UK fishing trade, but it has been left to go to ruin, causing great upset in Hull’s fishing community.
Young people go in there for reasons that I do not wish to elaborate on here. We can see from the discarded needles, from the bricks thrown from the top of the building and from the fire engines that attend the site regularly that it is not being properly safeguarded or protected. There will end up being a tragedy there, because people keep going to the building and it remains unsafe. If you ask people who is to blame, they will answer: Manor Properties. The company owns the Lord Line building and has a habit of promising wonderful, big, pie-in-the-sky dreams to the people of Hull. It would have been fantastic if it had been able to deliver on its original proposals, but time passes and the work is not done. The building continues to be damaged and to lose its integrity, and a vital and beloved part of our history as a seafaring city goes to rack and ruin.
This is an exceptionally important local issue, and it is one that goes to the very heart of the concept of property rights and what we value in this country. The question that we, as the representatives of the people, must answer is whether owning something gives someone the right not just to use it and earn from it but to actively destroy it, especially when it is of cultural significance to others. Of course this is a philosophical question, but that does not make it any less important to answer. If anything, abstracting the question makes it easier to answer. Imagine if, instead of a building, the thing being owned was a priceless piece of art or a beloved  public service. There are few among us here who would say that anyone, even those who own such artefacts, had an absolute right to take a shredder to the Mona Lisa, for example, or to destroy our NHS. The fact that we can accept that there is no absolute right to destroy property that one owns is one of the bases of our compulsory purchase system, but unfortunately, in one area in particular, our current system of compulsory purchase does not go far enough. This is a situation in which a property developer continually fails to fulfil the conditions of their planning permission within a reasonable amount of time, such as in the Lord Line case. It is such situations that my Bill seeks to address.
The first of the main provisions through which we aim to do that is enhancing compulsory purchase powers when planning permission has not been implemented in full for five years. Such powers would enable a local authority or other relevant body to acquire a site provided that development commences within 12 months of the acquisition and that at least 50% of the development is completed within three years. Secondly, we would introduce compulsory sale orders that could be utilised by councils under the same conditions. Compulsory sale orders would give local authorities the power to order that a piece of land that met the required conditions be put up for open auction. Related to that, the Bill makes provision for the introduction of completion notices and for changing what it means for a developer to make a “material start” to a property, which would prevent a developer from just digging a hole and claiming that work has been done.
We are lucky in Hull, because we do not have a particular problem with land being held back from the housing supply, but that is an additional issue that the Bill could tackle. The two new powers would allow for a common-sense system for the transfer of ownership of buildings in a productive way that will prevent anyone from being able to sit on a piece of land and run it down. They would also give local authorities a choice, and even allow cash-strapped councils to free pieces of land from abusive ownership while properly compensating the owner.
However, we must consider what we mean by proper compensation and, again, my Bill contains two provisions to address that. The first establishes that the rate of proper compensation should be that provided in the Planning (Affordable Housing and Land Compensation) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). The second would require a discount in compensation when a notice has been issued under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. We must also look at removing VAT for any conversion works to properties in heritage action zones and making new pots of money, to be administered by Homes England, available to local authorities to unlock such pieces of land.
The situation is not unique to Hull. It is also not a particularly party political issue, because such problems exist in constituencies up and down the country—the recent report by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on land banking revealed as much. This Bill offers a common-sense method to address the issue that is potentially acceptable to both sides. Yes, there may be tangential issues in my particular version of the Bill that some Members may disagree with, but I plead with those who do disagree, and with the Government as a whole, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to work with me. Let us find a common-sense compromise solution that will not allow Lord Line to crumble. Let us act now to save this piece of Hull’s history. The people of Hull will not forget or forgive us if we do not.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Emma Hardy, Mike Amesbury, Siobhain McDonagh, Bambos Charalambous, John Spellar, Stephen Pound, Rosie Duffield, Vernon Coaker, Mrs Madeleine Moon, Debbie Abrahams and Catherine West present the Bill.
Emma Hardy accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Thursday 5 September, and to be printed (Bill 434).

POINT OF ORDER

Thangam Debbonaire: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you, like so many people across the country, will have been moved by the sight of my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) asking such a rousing question at Prime Minister’s questions this afternoon. However, many of us felt that the answer was woefully inadequate, and the question was on such a serious matter that there was a danger that an unhelpful impression was being given to the public. I wonder whether you could advise me on what further steps I can suggest that my colleague take in order to get his question—a serious question on the matter of racism in this country—properly dealt with.

John Bercow: I am not sure that my counsel is of particular value in this matter, although I am touched by the hon. Lady’s faith in my capacity to assist the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) in his quest. What I would say is twofold. First, if the hon. Gentleman is disconcerted or irked by the answer that he received, it is open to him to table further questions in pursuit of satisfaction. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further beyond merely simple question and answer, it is open to him to seek an Adjournment debate on the matter, which could potentially attract the interest of other colleagues on both sides of the House. My immediate response is that those two devices may usefully meet the needs of the case. I am obliged to the hon. Lady for raising the matter, demonstrating not only her commitment to the issue, but her altruism on behalf of colleagues.

BILL PRESENTED

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 6) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Hilary Benn, supported by Alistair Burt, Mr Philip Hammond, Mr David Gauke, Tom Brake, Stephen Gethins, Jonathan Edwards, Joan Ryan, Caroline Lucas, Chris Bryant, Stephen Doughty and Nick Boles, presented a Bill to make further provision in connection with the period for negotiations for withdrawing from the European Union.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time today, and to be printed (Bill 433).

SPEAKER’S STATEMENT

John Bercow: Under the terms of the Order of the House yesterday, amendments for the Committee stage of the Bill may now be accepted by the Clerks at the Table only. An amendment paper containing all amendments tabled up until 3.30 pm today will be available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website by 5.15 pm. Members may continue to table amendments up until the start of proceedings in Committee of the whole House. If necessary, an updated amendment paper will be made available as soon as possible during proceedings in Committee. For the benefit of everyone, however, I encourage Members to table their amendments as soon as possible.
The Chairman of Ways and Means will make a provisional decision on selection and grouping on the basis of amendments tabled by 3.30 pm, and that provisional selection list will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website before the start of proceedings in Committee. In order to make the texts of the amendments available to Members as soon as practicable, it may not be possible to publish all the supporting Members’ names immediately. I hope that colleagues will not be unduly discombobulated or offended if that is the case. Those names will be added to the permanent online version of the Committee notice paper in due course. I hope that that advice is exhaustive at least for the narrow purpose that I had in mind.

Bill Cash: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It will be perfectly obvious to anyone watching these proceedings and, for that matter, the entire House that this incredibly rushed procedure is a travesty in itself. This will be incredibly difficult, even given the manner in which you put your statement just now, due to the speed with which we are going to have to assess the Bill, which we have not even seen yet and which, I understand, is only just being made available in the Vote Office. We will then have to make amendments to the Bill and then see the people who might support them. All that raises some incredibly difficult questions not only of procedure, but of the drafting of the amendments. That is my first point.
My second point is that there is an issue regarding Standing Order No. 14, which relates to the timing within which private Members’ Bills of this kind should be introduced. I would be grateful if some consideration was given to that point right now or shortly after you have had a chance to talk about it with the Clerks.
My third and fourth points are to do with Queen’s consent and the money resolution, because we went through all this in relation to the so-called Cooper-Letwin Bill. You made rulings on these matters then but, of course, this Bill is significantly different from that Bill on a whole range of matters. I understand you have had an opportunity to consider these questions privately, with the Clerk of Legislation I imagine, and I would be grateful if, in that context, you could give a ruling on the questions of both the money resolution and whether Queen’s consent is required.
The issues are there, and it is perfectly apparent that vast sums of money are being involved on a monthly basis as a result of the extension of time under the  Cooper-Letwin Bill. It is at least £8 billion from April to October, and now it is being extended by a further three months, which is even more money.

John Bercow: I am extremely obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I will attempt briefly to respond to each of the important points that he legitimately raises.
In terms of timing, it seems to me that there are two senses in which that concern can be aired and needs to be answered. The hon. Gentleman, if I understood the terms of his point of order correctly, focused in particular on the issue of time in the sense of the lack of it for Members to study the Bill and to table amendments. My response is as follows.
First, the hon. Gentleman is a quite remarkably experienced, skilled and dextrous parliamentarian. Now, admittedly not everybody has his level of experience, skill or dexterity, but I know he would not imagine that that of which he is capable is completely beyond everybody else. In other words, if everybody else has the opportunity to study the Bill and to come to a view about whether they wish to table amendments—the basic subject matter of the Bill was well known to them—they will be able to do so, probably at least close to his own level of acceptability and his own standard. That is the first point.
The second point on timing is that, of course, it is intended that the Bill will go through all stages today but, of course, there are several precedents for that. Those Bills have ordinarily been Government Bills, very often concerning Northern Ireland, but I accept it is unusual. What it is not, in any sense, is disorderly.
The hon. Gentleman has raised very important questions about a money resolution and Queen’s consent. Yes, this Bill is different, but I have, of course, consulted the Clerk of Legislation and other senior Clerks, on whose procedural expertise we regularly call. My ruling on Wednesday 3 April 2019, in respect of the earlier Bill that the hon. Gentleman referenced, was that
“the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 5) Bill does not require either a Ways and Means motion or a money resolution… extending the period under article 50 would continue the UK’s rights and obligations as a member state of the EU for the period of the extension, which would have substantial consequences for both spending and taxation.”—[Official Report, 3 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 1130-31.]
Clause 4(1) of the Bill before us today would require exit day to be moved to match any extension agreed with the European Council. The financial resolutions passed on Monday 11 September 2017 give fully adequate cover for the exercise by Ministers of their powers under sections 23 and 24 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to move exit day in order to keep in lockstep with the date for the expiry of the European treaties, which, of course, is determined by article 50 of the treaty on European Union.
So far as Queen’s consent is concerned, my ruling on Wednesday 3 April was that
“as no prerogative consent was required for the Bill in 2017 giving parliamentary authority to the Prime Minister to take action under article 50 of the treaty on European Union, there is no requirement for new and separate prerogative consent to be sought for legislation in 2019 on what further action the Prime Minister should take under the same article 50 of the treaty on European Union.”
The Bill before us today could require the Prime Minister to seek and accept an extension in certain circumstances, although it would still be up to the European Council to agree unanimously to an extension with the UK. In these circumstances, and I say this on the basis of professional advice, my ruling is that Queen’s consent is not needed for this Bill.
It will probably not satisfy or even humour the hon. Gentleman when I conclude my response with what I am about to say, but it is this: he will not be altogether surprised to know that we did consider these matters, not least in the expectation that they are legitimate issues that might be raised either by him or by others. I have been advised, I am satisfied with that advice and I would not rule unless I had asked the questions and got the answers, and I have done. I have asked the questions, I have received the answers and I have been satisfied that it is orderly to proceed and that the answers I have given in respect both of the money resolution and of Queen’s consent are correct.

Nicholas Boles: rose—

John Bercow: I call Mr Nicholas Edward Coleridge Boles.

Nicholas Boles: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), with his great distinction, is nevertheless blessed with the application called Twitter—if he is not, I am sure someone in his office is—but if he is, he will have seen that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) tweeted a full and complete image of the Bill and all its provisions at 5.25 pm yesterday.

John Bercow: That point stands on its own and requires no response from me.

Iain Duncan Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a small question on the basis of your judgment. As this whole issue of Queen’s consent hangs on whether, when this House triggered article 50, the statute covered and assumed the right under article 50(3) to extend and accept that extension, or whether that right still remains a Government prerogative under the prerogative powers. In a court case on 19 August, Lord Justice Hickinbottom of the Court of Appeal ruled categorically that it did not assume such a thing in the case brought by the English Democrats and ruled that the Government still retained the prerogative rights under article 50(3).
Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you have seen that ruling and whether you would take consideration of that prior to Third Reading, when I gather a final decision will have to be made.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My initial response is that we are guided in these matters by House rules in respect of Queen’s consent. It would be a mistake to think that they are extrapolated from or dependent upon judicial interpretation of the kind he references. We have our own procedures in relation to Queen’s consent, and what I am saying is consistent with those procedures.
I will certainly reflect further on the point the right hon. Gentleman has made, but it is not something that has a bearing on the Second Reading of this Bill.

David Davis: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You say you have taken advice on this. You may remember that the last time a Bill was put through the House at this speed was the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. That was done relatively quickly, supposedly under the pressure of the Government of the day needing that law. That Act was effectively overturned in court in Davis and Watson v. the Home Secretary of the day—she was subsequently Prime Minister—and part of the argument that I am sure affected the judges was the speed with which the House came to decisions on matters of fundamental constitutional importance.
Have you taken advice from Speaker’s Counsel as to the robustness of the legislation before us today in the face of such a judicial challenge?

John Bercow: It is not ordinarily the case that the courts look at how we make our decisions. There is quite an established principle of comity with the courts, and the principle is that our procedures are respected and, in turn, we respect those of the courts. As I say, I will happily reflect further on the right hon. Gentleman’s point, as I will reflect upon the point raised by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), but I am entirely comfortable that we are proceeding in a proper way.
I ought to say to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) that, of course, I am conscious, as every Member is, that there are different opinions about the merits of the procedure being followed today, as there are about the merits of the procedure followed yesterday and of the procedure followed at the time of the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), but those are matters of political dispute, not, in my judgment, of rule observance or procedural propriety. We are proceeding in a proper manner. That manner may offend the instincts of some Members, but that does not make it improper. It may mean simply that it is distasteful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sorry if that is the case, but it does not mean that he has made a valid point of a procedural character.

Bill Cash: rose—

John Bercow: Well, I am so fond of the hon. Gentleman and have such respect for him that I will take one more point of order, but after that we really must proceed.

Bill Cash: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand your ruling. I just want to put on the record the fact that where I was referring to discussions that have taken place, those have been based on some extremely learned analyses, for example, those by Dr Robert Craig, which are available on blogs and in various papers, and Sir Stephen Laws, a former First Parliamentary Counsel. So these issues have been looked at over the last period, and I just wanted to put that on the record.

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. What he is really saying, if I may put it in shorthand, is that there are clever and distinguished people who take a view with which he agrees and which it is therefore useful for him to invoke in the course of this exchange. I absolutely accept that, but, knowing him as I do, I know that he would not, for one moment, cast aspersions on the character, integrity or ability of the Clerk of Legislation, who is deeply versed in these matters and regularly consults his scholarly cranium in order to provide advice to Members in all parts of the House on them. If, on this occasion, the view of the Clerk of Legislation is uncongenial to the hon. Gentleman, that is, obviously, most unfortunate, notably for the hon. Gentleman, but it does not further advance his cause this afternoon. I hope that we can leave it there, because—

Charlie Elphicke: rose—

John Bercow: If it is a completely different point, I will take it. If the hon. Gentleman just wants to pursue the same argument, I will not.

Charlie Elphicke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply seek your guidance. I am reading this Bill, which I have just received, as it has just come from the Vote Office, and I see that it directs the Prime Minister to seek from the European Council an extension to article 50. As I understand it, that is an exercise of prerogative powers. I just want—

John Bercow: Order.

Charlie Elphicke: I just want to further—

John Bercow: Order. Please resume your seat. I am sorry, but when the Speaker is on his feet—it is not about me, but about the office of the Speaker—the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat. He is making a point that is important to him. It is a perfectly valid point of debate, but it is not a new point and it is not one that requires adjudication by the Chair. Sorry, but it is a political point and he can make it in the course of debate. There is nothing further to be added.

EUROPEAN UNION (WITHDRAWAL)  (NO. 6) BILL

Second Reading

Hilary Benn: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I want to say at the start that every Member of this House, whatever view they hold on the fundamental political question before us, is trying, as they see best, to act in the national interest and in the interests of their constituents. The problem—the reason why we are here today—is, of course, that each of us has a slightly different view of what those best interests are.
I recognise that we have only a very short amount of time in which to debate this Bill. Let me respond on that point by quoting—I can do no better—the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who said:
“it can only be done at high speed, because there is no time left.—[Official Report, 3 April 2019; Vol. 657, c. 1065.]
Wherever we stand on this issue, we know there is very little time left, and following the decision on Prorogation, there is even less time than would have been available previously. Therefore, I hope that, recognising that we have strongly held views, we will treat each other with respect and consideration during this debate.
The purpose of the Bill is simple: to ensure that the United Kingdom does not leave the European Union on 31 October without an agreement. The Bill has wide cross-party support; may I say that it is a great pleasure to be just above the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on the list of names? The Bill is backed by Members who have very different views on how the matter of Brexit should be finally resolved, including Members who until very recently were senior members of the Cabinet. People could describe this as a somewhat unlikely alliance, but what unites us is a conviction that there is no mandate for no deal, and that the consequences for the economy and for our country would be highly damaging. Those supporting the Bill believe that no deal is not in the national interest.

Bob Seely: The right hon. Gentleman talks about no deal. There are multiple sector deals. So does he not see those sector deals as being multiple deals in their own right?

Hilary Benn: I do not know where these sector deals are. My concern, and the reason for this Bill and the support I hope it will enjoy in the House today, is that the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that he is prepared to leave on 31 October without a deal. Those who I hope will support the Bill today do not wish that to happen.

Frank Field: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these debates have been going on for long periods and many of us have tried to learn lessons from them, and that in that process people have changed their mind or the order of importance they give to things in respect of preventing a no-deal Brexit? One of the amendments today seeks to give people another look at what we might call the “May plus” proposal. Some people turned that down at the time but feel that  if they had had then the experience that they have now they might have voted differently. Given all the rush that there, necessarily, has been, has he had the chance to look at that amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), which now has quite a large amount of support? Can we have another look at that as an alternative to a hard Brexit?

Hilary Benn: I have not had a chance to read the final version, and it will be tabled with the Clerks during this Second Reading debate, but I am aware of the intention of the amendment and I completely understand what my hon. Friends are trying to achieve. We cannot continue to delay taking a decision, and I shall come back to that point later in my speech. I will, of course, also listen to the debate that follows in Committee. I would just say that the Bill is deliberately open as to the purpose of the extension; it provides a framework for reporting and debate. As I have just pointed out, it is supported by right hon. and hon. Members who have already voted for a deal and would vote for one again. It is important that we focus on the principal purpose, which is to prevent a no-deal Brexit, and keep the coalition that shares that view together. I will have more to say about that—

Bill Cash: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that, irrespective of the speed with which all this is being done, a matter of such importance should really be dealt with in the context of a general election?

Hilary Benn: There may well be a general election at some point, but this legislation needs to be passed. It needs to go through the other place and receive Royal Assent, and it needs to be given effect. In other words, we must secure that extension to article 50, otherwise there is a risk that the election would result in our leaving without a deal, which, as it may turn out at 7 o’clock tonight, is not what the House of Commons wants. We should respect the view of the House of Commons.

Mark Pritchard: If this Bill passes and is given Royal Assent, can the right hon. Gentleman think of any other reason why the Labour party would not accept a general election?

Hilary Benn: I think I have just explained the reason, which has been made clear by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party, my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, and others. We must deal with first things first, and preventing a no-deal Brexit is the central, most important question facing the country.

Jonathan Edwards: I think the right hon. Gentleman has answered my query. The reality is that an election at this stage, or even next week, would undermine the purpose of the legislation. We cannot support one.

Hilary Benn: I can only agree, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being one of the Bill’s sponsors.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Hilary Benn: I will take just one more intervention at this stage, because many people want to speak and time is short.

Tim Loughton: I applaud the right hon. Gentleman’s call for respect on all sides; we need to calm down the whole debate. I voted for the deal twice; he voted against the deal three times, presumably because he thought it was not in the country’s best interests. How does he think this procedure to delay any agreement yet further is going to produce an offer from the EU that might actually tempt him into voting for something because it is in the better interests of the UK than what has gone before? How can that possibly come about through this procedure?

Hilary Benn: The reason why I voted against the deal three times was not really to do with the withdrawal agreement—the legally binding treaty; it was to do with the nature of the political declaration and the absolute lack of clarity about where the then Prime Minister wanted to take the country. That is my view and other Members have different views.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Hilary Benn: If Members will forgive me, I am not going to give way again at this point. I have been reasonably generous and I am conscious of the time.
It is important that we acknowledge the evidence before us about the consequences of no deal, because that evidence is the fundamental reason behind the Bill. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) when she spoke to her Bill earlier this year, it was reported that the Cabinet Secretary and National Security Adviser, Sir Mark Sedwill, had told the previous Cabinet that no deal would make our country “less safe”. If the National Security Adviser says that to the Cabinet, we ought to pay attention.
We have all seen the Government’s own economic assessment, which makes it clear that no deal would cause the greatest loss to the economy. Make UK, the body that represents British manufacturing industry, has described no deal as
“an act of economic vandalism”.
Since we last debated the question of an extension, new information about the consequences of no deal has come to light. The Government themselves have now admitted that there would be damage to companies. They have said that they are prepared to compensate certain businesses and industries. This is the first time in my experience that a Government have advocated a policy that they know will do economic damage.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Hilary Benn: Let me finish this point.
Operation Yellowhammer, on which the report was published in The Sunday Times, talked about the potential for protests; significant delays for lorries at Dover and other ports—the Exiting the European Union Committee heard powerful evidence on that subject only this morning—a potential impact on medicines; a decrease in the supply of fresh foods and some price rises; an impact on petrol refineries; huge uncertainty for businesses; and serious damage to farmers. Given the progress that Northern Ireland has made in the past 20 years, in some  ways most worrying of all was the expression of the view that the current open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic could be unsustainable because of economic, legal and biosecurity risks.

Stephen Doughty: I am of course keen to support the Bill. My right hon. Friend made the point about security. Is he aware that the Home Affairs Committee repeatedly heard evidence from senior police officers and security officials about the devastating impact of a no-deal Brexit? We keep hearing all the time from the Government about bilateral security treaties, but they are not in place and we do not have agreements to keep our borders safe from terrorists, criminals, paedophiles and others who would exploit our national security.

Hilary Benn: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is one of the many unanswered questions about what happens the other side of Halloween. I shall come back to that point a little later in my speech.

Steve Double: May I clarify something? Members of the Labour party have commented in the media, and I think the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, that the Bill stops no deal. We should be clear that the Bill does not stop no deal; it prolongs the time until the date we leave. The likelihood is that, unless something changes dramatically, we will be at exactly this same point a few weeks before the new deadline. The only way to stop no deal is to revoke article 50. If that is really what Opposition Members want, they should be honest with the British public.

Hilary Benn: If someone says, “You can jump off a cliff, with all the damaging consequences, in a couple of weeks’ time, or we could put it off for three months—which would you like?”, the sensible course of action to take, given the damage that it would do to the country, is to put it off. I accept that ultimately we need to find a way forward. I have my own views, as have other Members, about how that should be done, but that is not the purpose of the Bill. It would, though, provide for a framework within which the Government could decide what they are going to do.

Sarah Wollaston: Three independent and highly respected bodies—the Health Foundation, the Nuffield Trust and the King’s Fund—have written an open letter to all MPs setting out in stark terms how there would be significant damage to health and care services from a no-deal Brexit and, more importantly, to the people who depend on them—the people we are supposed to be in the House to protect.

Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Lady. Other Members will have lots of other experience of the potential consequences. These are not risks that we should take with our economy, businesses, jobs, livelihoods and health. I hope these risks remind everyone in the House that, for all the focus on process, motions and procedure, this debate is about the impact that a no-deal Brexit would have on the lives of the people we represent.

Steve Brine: I understand that there is a political imperative to “get this done” and to “move on”, but is not the point that the practical  imperative is that no deal will not allow us to move on? It will resolve nothing and will lead to many of the implications that the right hon. Gentleman has talked about. If we have no withdrawal agreement on 31 October, we will have to seek a withdrawal agreement on 1 November.

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Throughout a lot of these debates we have not discussed anything like enough what will happen the other side of 31 October, if the Prime Minister is able to get his way. I shall come to that point in a moment.

Angus MacNeil: With this Bill, the Chairman of the Select Committee is trying to prolong no damage until as far as 31 January. Make UK is absolutely correct that anything else but the current deal we have will damage the economy. We all have to get our heads around the fact that the best way to stop any damage at all is to revoke article 50. I have tabled an amendment to that end; it would include a helpful letter in the schedule. It needs one signature—that of the Prime Minister—and this nightmare will be over in that length of time.

Hilary Benn: I respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because just as no deal is unacceptable, so revocation—which is basically saying, “Let’s cancel the whole result of the referendum”—is not acceptable either. I have expressed previously in the House my view about how we should resolve this matter by going back to the people. Other Members have different views, but that is not the issue today.

Anna Soubry: If I may say so, I am particularly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he chairs the Select Committee and takes vital evidence. Is that not really the point, over and above the Bill? That is precisely the sort of work that should be done. Questions should be asked of Ministers. This place should be making sure that we are ready for no deal, yet we are being closed down next week when we should be sitting and asking questions. The right hon. Gentleman’s Committee, and others, should be able to do their valuable work.

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. One consequence of Prorogation is that our Select Committees cannot meet. We cannot scrutinise the Government and hold them to account. That is what we are missing.

Jack Dromey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is surprising that there appear to be Members in this House who know more about making cars than those who make cars, more about building planes than those who build planes and more about engineering than the engineers? The simple truth is that the overwhelming and unmistakeable voice of the world of work and industry, and of all the employers’ organisations and trade unions, is that a no-deal Brexit would have catastrophic consequences, with tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs, making our country poorer in every sense of the word for years to come.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Those industries and sectors, whose representatives we have all met and whose evidence we have heard, are troubled that the message that comes from their expertise and knowledge—after all, they are the people who create the wealth of the country—is not being heard by a Government who say, “We are prepared to leave with no deal on 31 October.”

Phil Wilson: rose—

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend has a room next door to mine. Of course I will give way, and then I will make progress.

Phil Wilson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. This morning, I received a letter from North East England Chamber of Commerce, in which it says:
“Over the past three years we have been clear and consistent: preserving the trading conditions and relationship we currently enjoy with the EU ought to be the primary objective of any Brexit outcome. Sadly, the Government’s willingness to embrace No Deal as an acceptable end to the Brexit negotiations flies in the face of this.”
It goes on to say that it is a disastrous outcome for the north-east of England. Do these comments not go to prove that his Bill is an absolute necessity?

Hilary Benn: They absolutely do.
Having now, in a sense, concluded a discussion and reflection on the economic and other consequences of no deal, I want to turn to what the Bill actually does. It intends to stop this happening by seeking an extension to article 50 in certain very specific circumstances.
It is very important to understand that the Bill allows the Prime Minister the opportunity to reach a new agreement with the European Union at the European Council and to seek Parliament’s consent to any such agreement. That is condition No. 1. It also allows the Government to bring a motion to the House of Commons to seek our consent for leaving without a deal—for example, if discussions at the European Council prove unsuccessful. I think that the Government would find it rather difficult to get such a motion through the House of Commons, but the Bill allows them to seek to do that. Clause 1 specifically provides for both those eventualities, and if either of the conditions is met there can be no further extension. If, however, neither of those conditions has been met by 19 October, which was chosen very deliberately as it is the day after the conclusion of the European Council, the Prime Minister must ask the EU for a further extension until 31 January 2020 in the form of the letter set out in the schedule to the Bill.
Clause 3 deals with what happens next. If the European Council accedes to that request, the Prime Minister must agree to it. If, however, the Council proposes an extension to a different date, the Prime Minister must agree to that as well, unless the House of Commons decides not to pass a motion agreeing to it. That is what clause 3(3) does.
It has been wrongly claimed in some commentaries that the EU could propose an extension of any length—six months, 20 years, a millennium—and the Prime Minister would be required to accept it, but that is not so. In those circumstances, the House could decide.  Furthermore, if a deal is reached after the Prime Minister has asked for an extension, that would override any extension, so it also allows him, if he can, to reach a deal after the European Council concludes on 18 October.

Dr Caroline Johnson: rose—

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Hilary Benn: I will give way in a moment.
In other words, the Bill gives the Prime Minister the flexibility that he wants and needs to get a deal if he can. It does not render further negotiation pointless—if the Prime Minister were here I would say this forcefully to him—but what does is the Prime Minister’s apparent refusal to put any proposals to the EU if this Bill passes, which I can describe only as a very odd state of affairs.

Bernard Jenkin: Clause 3(2) is very clear that the period of two days begins with
“the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made.”
We were told very clearly during proceedings on the change of date, after the two previous occasions when the Government accepted an extension, that we were merely implementing a decision that was already made and binding in European Union law. The right hon. Gentleman’s proposal depends on the European Union making a conditional offer that comes into force only if it chooses to make it conditional on subsequent approval by the House of Commons. He has no way of binding the European Union’s procedures by domestic legislation.

Hilary Benn: If the Bill is passed, the House of Commons will pass it in the knowledge that it is seeking in the circumstances set out an extension to 31 January. If, however, the European Union proposes a different date, it seems to be only right and proper that the Prime Minister should be able to say, either, “Yes, that is fine by me,” or, “I will need to go back and check.” I agree with the hon Gentleman that, of course, we cannot bind the European Union in the way it seeks to work, but it is not at all unusual for member states to say, “Well, we will need to go back and check with our Parliament.” I am certain, given the importance of this issue, that the European Union would be able to find another procedure, which might not involve the European Council meeting again, to confirm the decision it made in making the offer in the first place.
The second point is that the two days is intended precisely to give the Prime Minister the chance to come back to the House in those circumstances.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. My reading of this Bill is that it does not stop no deal—it postpones it potentially for three months—but it does make it virtually impossible for our Prime Minister to negotiate. Therefore, it is a political Bill, which, sadly, some on our Benches have supported. What it does is tell the European Union that, if it does not choose to negotiate and it does not choose to give us a better deal, it has the opportunity to offer us an extension of whatever it wants this House to take.

Hilary Benn: I have dealt with that last point—an extension of whatever length. There is a means by which the Government can ask the House not to approve that, and then the House would have to make a decision in the light of what had been offered by the European Union. I do not accept the hon. Lady’s central premise that this somehow undermines the Prime Minister’s negotiating ability.

Dr Caroline Johnson: rose—

Hilary Benn: I am responding to the hon. Lady if she just bears with me. I do not regard the threat of a no-deal Brexit as part of a credible negotiating strategy.

Dr Caroline Johnson: rose—

Hilary Benn: Will the hon. Lady bear with me? The previous Prime Minister spent nearly two years saying that no deal is better than a bad deal and it did not seem to work then, and I do not think it will work now.

Dr Caroline Johnson: rose—

Hilary Benn: I will give way one more time.

Dr Caroline Johnson: If I am correct, it would mean that if the European Union offered us a 10-year extension, as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, the choice for this House would be a 10-year extension or the no deal he so wishes to avoid.

Hilary Benn: No, that is not the case. In those circumstances, the House could decide to ask the Prime Minister to go back. The central point is that it gives the House of Commons the ability to express a view, but if the extension was to 31 January we would have already decided that we were prepared to accept that. Therefore, it is only if the Prime Minister does not get a deal that the Bill prevents him from taking us out of the EU without an agreement.

Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Hilary Benn: I will give way one more time to the hon. Gentleman.

Bernard Jenkin: Article 50(3) of the treaty on European Union baldly states that we leave after two years
“unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
There is no obligation on the European Union to decide to make a conditional offer—it can decide—yet the Bill requires the Prime Minister, in those circumstances, to accept the terms that are on offer, and that is it. The Bill hands the decision back to the European Union, rather than to this House.

Hilary Benn: I do not agree. Of course, we all recognise that with any of these provisions there is no guarantee that the European Union will grant a further request from the United Kingdom for another extension of article 50. It takes only one member state of the European  Union to say, “No, I’m not giving the United Kingdom a further extension” for us to be in even greater difficulty than we are already.
The provision seeks to require the Prime Minister to ask for and agree to an extension, because that is what is required to prevent the current Prime Minister from taking us out of the EU on 31 October without a deal. We did not have to put those provisions in the earlier Bill introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford because the former Prime Minister readily accepted the decision of the House of Commons, but we are now in different circumstances.
Clause 2 covers what happens if an extension is proposed and agreed. Members have asked, quite rightly, what the extension is for. The immediate answer is, of course, to avoid a no-deal Brexit on 31 October, but clause 2 provides a framework under which the Government will publish a report to the House on 30 November—this comes back to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) raised with me earlier—and move a motion to the effect that the House has approved the report. That gives the Government a chance to say, “What are we going to do next?” It is also something that we can point to with the European Union. Members should remember that, last time, Mr Tusk said, “Use the time well,” and it is important that we in this House show that we are not just saying, “Right, we want a further extension, and then we are going to twiddle our thumbs for another three months.”
The Bill suggests a process. If the report is amended or rejected, there must be further reports from the Government on 10 January and every 28 days thereafter, either until an agreement is reached with the EU or until otherwise indicated by a resolution of the House. I think the framework in clause 2 will help to answer the question about what we intend to do with the additional time, and that will be a matter for Parliament.

Tom Brake: Surely, one of the things that we would want to do during that time is to try to find a solution to the Irish question. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the EU Commission taskforce is reporting that the Prime Minister is reneging on his commitment to protect the all-Ireland economy and meaningful north-south co-operation? Clearly, the time should be used to ensure that there is decent co-operation.

Hilary Benn: I have read those reports and they are of concern to me, as I know they are to the right hon. Gentleman and many others in the House.
The aim of the clause is not, as I think the Leader of the House suggested yesterday, to create a “marionette Government” but, I would argue, to give the Government the time they need to do their job. I say that because it is not clear what is happening at the moment, as we discussed yesterday, and how much negotiation is taking place when no proposals have been made. It is very hard to understand that, because I would have thought that the Government had been working flat out since July. It is also important to make the point that even if agreement was reached, it is very hard to see how it would be possible to get the House’s approval and pass all the legislation between 18 October or so and 31 October.
My final point is this. What would happen if we left with no deal? The Prime Minister talks about getting it done and ending the uncertainty, but the truth is—the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) made this point powerfully—that no deal would not end anything. It would simply plunge us into greater uncertainty—uncertainty about the degree and length of disruption, uncertainty about the border arrangements in Northern Ireland, and uncertainty about our future trading relationship with our biggest, nearest and most important trading partners, the other members of the European Union.
Given that it has taken three years to get this far—in other words, not very far at all—and given that it took Canada seven years to negotiate a deal and the Prime Minister says he wants a super-Canada deal, it is going to take years to agree a new relationship. Every single EU member state, member state parliament and regional parliament will have to agree to any deal. No deal will not be the end of Brexit; it will only be the end of the beginning. In that time, faced with that degree of uncertainty, businesses will have countless decisions to make about where to invest, what to make and where, what to do about the sudden disappearance of all the arrangements that they have come to know and work within, and what to do about the sudden imposition of tariffs. It would be utterly irresponsible to allow that to happen. We have a duty to prevent it, and I hope the House will vote for this Bill tonight.

John Bercow: In an attempt to accommodate lots of Members who wish to take part, I am obliged to impose a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches with immediate effect.

Alistair Burt: I rise to speak as the proud but slightly bemused independent Member for North East Bedfordshire. I commend my friend, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), for his remarks and the way in which he went through the technicalities of the Bill. I have no wish to do the same and do not wish to detain the House on those matters. Let me make just three brief points in support of the Bill.
First, is the Bill a stumbling block to negotiations? No, it is not. The Bill does not prevent the Prime Minister or the Government from negotiating. The reason that we do not yet have a deal or might not get one is not this Bill. Ever since the referendum and the start of negotiations, a variety of reasons have been cited for not getting a deal. In no particular order, it has been: a remainer Parliament, a remainer Prime Minister, Olly Robbins, the EU, Michel Barnier, Martin Selmayr—always a different reason. We were told recently that all could be solved if only we elected a Prime Minister who was a Brexiteer with an absolute determination to leave, no questions asked, because the EU would then fold and we would have the deal that the UK always wanted. We have such a Prime Minister, whose determination is clear, and the EU has not folded, so this time we are being told that it is us—that it is me. That is nonsense.
There are two reasons why we have not had a deal. First, Members in this House have not voted for a deal. If they had looked at it hard two years ago, they would have bitten your hand off to accept all the provisions in  the withdrawal agreement and the transition period, which a Brexiteer will now be in charge of. The second reason is that many in the UK have failed to grasp that it is we who are leaving the EU. That means that it is a negotiation between us. We have never really understood the EU or its arguments, believing that a negotiation was a series of demands from the United Kingdom, not a negotiation. That and the language that we have used—built on 20-odd years of the drip, drip of poison about the EU—has made sure that we did not get a deal.

Angela Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman and I came to this House in the same year, so I am sad to hear his announcement that he is going. Does he agree that the kind of language being used from the Government Front Bench and in the media about those who are trying to prevent no deal, such as “traitors” and “collaborators”—all of that war-like language—is less than helpful?

Alistair Burt: Absolutely. In my conclusion, I shall talk a bit about that and how we have got to reset, but the hon. Lady makes a good point.
Secondly, why do we want to avoid no deal? I will not repeat all the things that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central said, which are obvious; the economics are clear. For me, there are three reasons. The first is the threat to the Union. I am a Scot, my mother and father from Scotland. I am a proud Scot. I am also British through and through. I could not believe a recent poll of Conservative members that said they would abandon almost anything, including the Union, providing they left the EU. I regard that as a terrible threat. We should not risk it.
My second reason is Ireland, which is treated by some here as some sort of irrelevance and a place that has made up the border issue to prevent us from leaving the EU. With our history in relation to Ireland and everything that happened there, it became our best friend in the European Union. Our choice to leave—our Brexit—has put Ireland in the most catastrophic situation of any country, and we now expect it to accept another English demand that it should do something. Have we no understanding of what that relationship means and the damage done?
My third reason for wanting to avoid no deal is the damage to Europe and the relationship with Europe itself. I grew up as part of the first generation to avoid war in Europe for countless hundreds of years. I arrived in the House of Commons when there were giants here such as Denis Healey, Willie Whitelaw and Ted Heath—people for whom Europe was the place where they and their friends had fought and died—and they wanted something different. That has always motivated me in my sense of Europe. Whether we are in the European Union or not, that relationship with Europe is clouded by the sort of language that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) mentioned. I do not want to see that relationship threatened by a no deal.

Bill Cash: Will he take a second intervention?

Alistair Burt: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman involuntarily for most of the years that I have been here—most, not all, because I went to campaign for him in his by-election of 1984. I have no wish to hear from him voluntarily. [Laughter.] Let me go on.
Thirdly, let me end where I began, as the Independent Member for North East Bedfordshire. I do not complain at the removal of the Whip—voting on an issue of confidence, I accept the rules—but I say to my colleagues: just think how this looks. Last week, the Conservative party lost Ruth Davidson and George Young in the House of Lords resigned the Whip. This morning, we lost my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) —who made the economy we were cheering just a few minutes ago. What are people going to think about what we have left and what we have lost? Some will have been very happy at the fact that some have been purged—purged. A few weeks ago, one of our colleagues retweeted an article in The Daily Telegraph that looked forward to the purging of remoaners in the Conservative party. That was disgraceful. I say to my colleagues, if we are being purged now, who is next? Watch a film called “Good Night, and Good Luck”, and you will take my point.
This may be the last substantive speech I make here as I am not standing again—and who knows when the election will come? I will leave with the best of memories of this place, friends and colleagues on all sides. The obsession that my party has developed may have sought to devalue my past as a friend of the EU, of our sister centre-right parties, and of many friends, and it may have curtailed my future, but it will not rob me of what I believe. I will walk out of here looking up at the sky, not down at my shoes. [Applause.]

John Bercow: Order. I call Jane Dodds to make her maiden speech.

Jane Dodds: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to be speaking in this particular debate.
May I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Mr Chris Davies? He worked hard for our local communities, raising awareness of the very difficult issue of mental health and suicide in farmers. I thank him for his service. Chris followed hard on the heels of the highly respected Liberal Democrat MP, Roger Williams. Roger’s are large boots to fill and, if I can even partly match his passion, service and commitment, I shall be very pleased.
It is a huge privilege to represent Brecon and Radnorshire, one of the most beautiful constituencies in the country. It is also the largest constituency in England and Wales— something that I am sure some Members here will have discovered during the recent by-election when searching for another elusive farmhouse up yet another long and scenic track. Brecon and Radnorshire is home to strong and resilient communities, some of which are Welsh-speaking. Sadly, many of our libraries, banks and post offices in these communities have closed in recent years. Despite this, there is a real joy for life in the old counties of Radnorshire and Brecknockshire, as well as a healthy rivalry between them, that makes sure that the mid-Wales spirit—yr ysbryd—is alive and well.
Many Members here will have had the luxury of making their maiden speeches in the weeks and months following a general election, looking forward to the many years of a full parliamentary term. My maiden speech could not be made in more different circumstances. [Laughter.]
On the night of the by-election, I promised the people of Brecon and Radnorshire that I would tell the Prime Minister exactly why a no-deal Brexit would be damaging for my constituents. Well, I am delighted that last night my very first vote as the Member of Parliament for Brecon and Radnorshire was to help Parliament take back control of the agenda and to do everything possible to prevent us leaving the EU without a deal, including speaking in this debate today. When it comes to a no-deal Brexit, we need to stop talking in terms of the hypothetical and the theoretical and start talking with candour about the real and damaging consequences it would bring.
A no-deal Brexit would be damaging for everyone in my constituency, but particularly for the people who are the lifeblood of Brecon and Radnorshire—the farmers. Welsh farmers, as we heard this morning, export 40% of their lamb, and over 90% of that goes to the EU. Currently, if farmers in Brecon and Radnorshire export to the EU, export tariffs are—let me have a think—zero. A no-deal Brexit would mean 40% tariffs on Welsh lamb exports. That would risk putting farmers in my constituency and right across Wales out of business.
I will be using my votes today to ensure that a no-deal Brexit is avoided, as it would be catastrophic for the people of Brecon and Radnorshire. Whether people voted remain or leave, they did not vote for a no-deal Brexit that would make them poorer. They did not vote for long waits for life-saving medicines and they did not vote for a decline in our country’s environmental standards.
I am extremely privileged to be able to serve the wonderful people of Brecon and Radnorshire and I shall do my utmost to be an MP they are proud of. Diolch yn fawr iawn—thank you very much.

John Bercow: Thank you. I think the House greatly enjoyed listening to the hon. Lady, and we wish her well. I call Mr Philip Hammond.

Philip Hammond: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want us to leave the European Union with a deal and I voted three times to leave the European Union with a deal. I regret the fact that it has become necessary for this Bill to be brought forward now, and it is necessary now for two reasons: first, because Parliament stands prorogued, so we will not have time potentially to bring Parliament back after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had the 30 days that he asked for, to see whether he has been successful in getting a deal; and, secondly, because members of the Government have speculated openly that the Government may not comply with legislation even if it is passed and we therefore need to allow time for not merely legislation but litigation as well.

Paul Farrelly: On that point, we have heard noises to that effect from certain members of the Government and Government sources. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if this Bill is passed, it is very important that the Prime Minister adheres to its terms, because it is a fundamental duty of Government to uphold the rule of law?

Philip Hammond: I absolutely agree, but we have heard clearly that we cannot rule out the possibility that the Government will dispute the interpretation of the Bill and that there will be a need for litigation in the courts, to ensure that its effect is delivered.
We need to act because there is no mandate for a no-deal Brexit, and a no-deal Brexit will be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. I remind my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that many of us who are now on the Back Benches have had the privilege of seeing the detailed analysis from within Government about the precise and damaging effects of such a no-deal Brexit.
We need to act for another reason. The Prime Minister repeats two statements. He says that he is sincerely trying to get a deal, and he says that we will leave on 31 October come what may, do or die. Regrettably, those two statements are incompatible. Even if the fantasy deal that the Prime Minister sets out, where the EU concedes to every demand of the United Kingdom and removes every one of its red lines, were agreed tomorrow, it would still not be possible to get through all the stages of process required, including passage through both Houses of this Parliament, by 31 October. So we had to act.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) set out brilliantly the purposes of the Bill and how it works. Time is limited, so I do not intend to rehearse those arguments. I want simply to focus on two claims that are made against Conservative supporters of this Bill—or former Conservative supporters of this Bill—by the Government and seek to rebut them. Presumably these claims have been made as a justification for the mass purge that occurred last night.
The first claim is that, by removing the threat of no deal on 31 October, we are cutting the legs from under the Government in their negotiations with the EU. That is wrong. It is wrong because, actually, there is no negotiation going on with the EU. We have had confirmation from multiple sources across the European Union that nothing is happening, and confirmation from within Government that nothing is happening. The Government have declined to bring forward any proposals or serve any proposals on the European Union. It betrays a deep misunderstanding of the way European politics works. Yes, European politics is every bit as scrappy as British politics, but across the continent of Europe people who are sworn enemies and debate vigorously are used to having to make deals because, for the overwhelming majority of our colleagues in Europe, coalition Government is the norm. They have a different system from our adversarial system.
The EU has taken a remarkably consistent approach throughout these negotiations. On the format of the negotiations, on its mandate and on its commitment to transparency, it publishes everything openly. Nothing that we are doing here is going to undermine the Prime Minister’s ability to negotiate with the EU. The thing that will undermine it is his unwillingness to pursue a realistic negotiating objective. If he tried to achieve significant changes to the way the backstop works, that would be a major concession by the EU, but I do think that my right hon. Friend—as a new Prime Minister, leading a new Government—would stand at least a reasonable chance of getting a hearing and maybe succeeding. However, by setting the bar, as he has, at the  total removal of the backstop, he has set the bar at a level that is impossible for the European Union to comply with.
The second claim that is made against us is that by supporting this Bill we are handing power to the Leader of the Opposition. I would sooner boil my head than hand power to the Leader of the Opposition. Most of us will have no truck with the concept of a vote of no confidence. The purpose of this Bill is to instruct this Government and this Administration how to conduct the UK’s future arrangements with the European Union. It is not an attempt to remove this Government and it is certainly not an attempt to hand power to the Leader of the Opposition. It is not we who are heightening the risk of a Government led by the Leader of the Opposition. It is my right hon. Friend by pursuing a course of action that, if unchallenged, can only lead to a no-deal Brexit.

Keir Starmer: I rise in support of the Bill. The Prime Minister has decided that the UK should leave the EU on 31 October with or without a deal. He says that he is making progress in talks with a view to getting a deal, but he is not. Chancellor Merkel says no proposals have been put forward by the Government. The Deputy Prime Minister of Ireland says no proposals have been put forward by the Government. Across the EU, everybody says no proposals have been put forward by the Government. Yesterday, the Government did not deny that they have not put forward proposals in these negotiations; they just dodged questions and refused to answer honest questions about whether there is any evidence of any progress in the talks.
The Government are convincing no one, and at Prime Minister’s questions today the Prime Minister tied himself completely in knots in suggesting that he had not put forward any proposals because this Bill might pass later this week. So for the last six weeks, he has not done anything in case a Bill he had not heard of gets Royal Assent sometime soon. Ridiculous! There is no progress, and there is no workable alternative on the table to prevent a hard border in Northern Ireland. Indeed—this point has already been touched on—far from making progress on this crucial point, it was reported yesterday that the Government are seeking to backtrack, and to revisit the commitments to protect the all-Ireland economy, including the December joint report.

Jamie Stone: My wife comes from County Armagh, and I was married some two miles from the border at the height of the troubles. Is it not arguable that the present border arrangements in the island of Ireland contribute massively to the present peace process that we enjoy?

Keir Starmer: Massively. They are the manifestation of peace in Northern Ireland. As I have said many times, they are more than a question of getting goods and people across a line; they are the manifestation of peace that allows different communities to live together in peace.

Sylvia Hermon: I am enormously grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. Does he agree that it is very strange, to put it mildly—bearing in mind that the  Republic of Ireland is our nearest EU neighbour, shares a land frontier with part of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland and is a co-guarantor of the Good Friday agreement—that if the Prime Minister has been so, so, so busy negotiating over this summer, as he claims, he has not actually found time to go to Dublin to meet the Irish Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, and discuss any proposals that he might have? Is that not extraordinary?

Keir Starmer: Yes, it is extraordinary, but it sits with the other evidence that there are not any proposals being put forward and that there are not any negotiations actually taking place. Therefore, we are not closer to a deal now than we were when this Prime Minister took office; in truth, we are further away. That appears from leaks to be the Prime Minister’s chief of staff’s policy position, because he talks of negotiations, apparently, for domestic consumption, yet the talks are a sham.

Ben Bradshaw: Will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure me that we will not fall into the trap being set by the Prime Minister, and that we will not support a general election before not only this Bill is enacted, but its provisions, including an extension, have been implemented?

Keir Starmer: I can confirm that we will not be voting with the Government tonight and that we will keep our focus on the task in hand, which is to ensure that we do not leave the EU without a deal, and that requires the passing and implementation of this Bill.

Angela Eagle: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way on that point?

Keir Starmer: I will make some progress and give way in a moment.
So the truth is that we are on course for a no-deal Brexit for which there is no mandate from the public or from this Parliament. We might think that in those circumstances this Parliament would be sitting every available day between now and 31 October, to avert this threat, to scrutinise the Prime Minister’s plan—if there is one—and to find a way forward, if we can. We would all willingly sit on those days to find that way forward, but no: from next week the Prime Minister wants to shut this place down for five weeks in this crucial period. He thinks that we and the public will be fooled by the obvious untruth that Prorogation is merely for a Queen’s Speech. The five-week prorogation is to silence this House and frustrate attempts to prevent no deal, and any suggestion to the contrary from anyone, in my view, is disingenuous.

Angela Eagle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the characterisation by Conservative central office, which is appearing on Twitter and on its other social media even now, as we debate this extremely important Bill—hashtagging this Bill the #SurrenderBill—is beneath contempt?

Keir Starmer: It is beneath contempt, and I can only imagine how businesses—the people who work in businesses and the management of businesses—will look on in horror, because they have repeatedly told me and many other Members of this House their deep concerns about no deal, and we are protecting this country against no deal.

Simon Hoare: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Keir Starmer: I will make some progress and then I will give way.
In circumstances in which there is no progress in the negotiations, we are hurtling towards no deal and the Prime Minister is closing down this place, we have no alternative but to pursue this Bill. We have to act with urgency and to pass binding legislation to rule out no deal by the time this House prorogues. That is what this Bill will achieve today.
I want to put on record my thanks to the right hon. and hon. Members who have worked over many weeks on this Bill, in particular the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) and the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), as well as the leaders of the Scottish National party, the Lib Dems, the Greens, Plaid and Change UK, because this has genuinely been a cross-party Bill. On behalf of all my colleagues, I acknowledge the courage of the 21 former Conservative MPs who voted as a matter of principle in the Standing Order No. 24 debate last night, putting their country before their career. We acknowledge their courage and what they did as a matter of principle.
Why has there been such concerted effort? It is not usual to find an alliance of all Opposition parties and cross-party MPs. The answer is that we all appreciate the appalling damage no deal would cause to jobs, to industry, to our NHS, to security, and to peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. Therefore, we were all shocked, if not surprised, at the warnings contained in the leaked Yellowhammer documents: food and fuel shortages, delay to medicines, and chaos at ports and channel crossings, all affecting the poorest communities. What leapt out to me from the Yellowhammer documents was the honest advice to the Government that, try as they might, the civil servants could not find a way of avoiding the conclusion that if we leave without a deal there will have to be infrastructure in Northern Ireland.

Justine Greening: Is it not ironic that in the very week the Government announce an advertising campaign called “Get ready for Brexit”, they simultaneously refuse to actually release any details about what we are meant to be getting ready for? Would Ministers not be better advised to be transparent about the impact of no deal, and, frankly, about the fact that it sounds to me like there was never a detailed plan on how to deliver Brexit? There has not been one in three years, and I really worry that it never existed in the first place.

Keir Starmer: Of course that information should be put in the public domain, so that everybody understands the impact of no deal. The fact that the Government do not want it in the public domain speaks volumes. The mantra is that they cannot put our proposals in public because they do not negotiate in public, but they can surely put them before the partners they are supposed to be negotiating with. They just are not there.

Jonathan Edwards: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way on that point?

Keir Starmer: I will give way.

John Bercow: Order. Could I just make the point that there are lots of people who want to speak? There is very little time, and if there are continual interventions very large numbers of colleagues who wish to speak will not do so—simple as that.

Jonathan Edwards: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. On Yellowhammer, the Welsh Government have been provided with a copy of the original document. Will he call on his colleagues to publish it?

Keir Starmer: I will, but I am not sure that me calling for that is enough in itself to get it published. We will see what else we can do. Mr Speaker, I will press on, because I do know there are other speakers to come.
This is a very simple Bill. It is deliberately constrained. It does not answer the question, what else needs to happen? It gives the Prime Minister the chance to get a deal and to get it through. It gives the Prime Minister the chance to have the courage to come to the Dispatch Box and say, “My policy is to leave without a deal. Do I have a majority for it?” If he did that, we would not need to go down this route. He will not do that, however, because he knows what the result will be. Only if there is a no deal and only if there is no approval for leaving without a deal do the provisions in the Bill requiring an extension kick in.
Mr Speaker, this is an extraordinary route, but these are extraordinary times. We have to act. We have to act now. Today is the last chance to prevent no deal, and we must seize it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: With immediate effect, we now need a three-minute time limit. Otherwise, colleagues who want to speak will not have the chance to do so.

Jeremy Wright: Perhaps I can start by agreeing with something that others have said, which is that, regardless of one’s views on this subject, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and others who spoken in this debate are acting the national interest in bringing up these issues in the way that they do. They do not deserve to be name-called as a result. Having said that, however, I disagree with the Bill.
The Bill does three things: it sets out that the Government should get specific parliamentary authority for any deal they negotiate; it sets out that they should get specific authority for any exit from the EU without a deal; and it sets out that, failing either of those, they should enact a three-month further extension in our departure from the EU. I am afraid that my view is that the first two of those are unnecessary and the third is undesirable. In two and a half minutes, I will try to explain why.
On the first, it seems to me that our existing procedures allow for the Government to bring forward any deal that they negotiate, for us to approve it or not. It would be an international treaty, and the processes are already in place for us to do that.
Secondly, in relation to a no-deal outcome, what the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and colleagues have put forward is on the premise that there is no mandate for no deal. It is certainly true that the leave campaign in the 2016 referendum did not advocate no deal. That was not its preference and, as I understand it, that is still not the Government’s preference, but nor was it put to the electorate that we would leave only if there was a deal with the EU. That could never have been guaranteed. There was no pattern to follow and no example for us to look at, and it could never have been certain that the EU would put forward a proposal that we found acceptable. Indeed, some of us who argued for remain in the referendum campaign said, “If you decide to leave, you take a leap in the dark. You cannot know what the future will look like and you cannot know what, if any, deal we will be offered by the EU or by anyone else.” The electorate, as it was their absolute right to do, listened to those arguments, rejected them and decided to leave anyway. It was their decision to make and, in my view, they were perfectly entitled to make it.

Margot James: Even if I accepted my right hon. and learned Friend’s main point about the way that the referendum campaign was conducted by leave, which I do not, does he not accept that in a democracy, minorities have rights? A minority as big as 48%, and a majority in Northern Ireland, in Scotland and in our northern cities, should not be so dismissed.

Jeremy Wright: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that minorities should not be dismissed, and frankly, the way in which we conduct this debate should reflect the fact that 48% of the public voted in a different way from the prevailing outcome. I do not think that we have succeeded in that as a Parliament or in a broader national debate. The truth is that that we—Parliament—set out the rules for this referendum in the European Union Referendum Act 2015. As she has just said, many of us participated in the referendum campaign on both sides of the argument, and we stressed that it was the public’s decision to make. When they had made it, we— Parliament—decided to trigger article 50 of the EU treaty.
As someone who has spent more time than is good for anyone looking at article 50, I can tell the House that it does not require the leaving country to do so with a deal. When we—Parliament—decided to trigger the article 50 process, we knew, or we should have known, that one possible outcome was a no-deal outcome. It was not one that we wished to see and not one that we expected to see, but it was one that could have happened, so I am afraid that on this fundamental point, I cannot agree that we do not have a mandate for no deal and therefore, that we must proceed as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central sets out in the Bill.

Lisa Nandy: I very much welcome the Bill and the tone with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) introduced it. It reminded me of the famous book, “Profiles in Courage”, by John F. Kennedy, in which he said that
“there are few if any issues where all the truth and all the right and all the angels are on one side.”
We would do well to remember that in this House. Coherent, persuasive and passionate arguments and points have been made by people with every single type of view on Brexit, and we ought to respect one another and conduct the debate in that spirit.
This is not an easy thing for me to vote for, because I have spent the last few years arguing passionately that delay has consequences, that companies in my constituency need certainty and that the public cannot take much more of this. They want to see us come together, compromise and respect the 48% of people who came out and said that they wanted close ties with the EU.

Simon Hoare: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lisa Nandy: I will not, because of time. They also want to see us respect the fact that 52% of those who voted wanted to leave the EU. We said it was their choice, and we have a duty to try to enact it.
But the truth is this is the right thing to do. There are many people in my constituency—a third—who voted remain and want us to stop this process altogether. There are others—I would say the most significant group—who want to cut all ties and leave the EU altogether. They shout louder than the others and often drown out the voices calling for consensus, but it is my job to make sure they do not, because they do not have the right to put food manufacturing companies in my constituency out of business. We lived through the closure of the mines in Wigan and we live with the consequences still. It was a tragedy for many families from which some never recovered. I will not let those small and medium-sized employers in my constituency, which make up the bulk of employment, be put out of business because we cannot get our act together as a House, because we cannot stop this reckless Prime Minister, because we cannot work together to achieve the deal we have promised the people.
People do not have the right to say to the child in my constituency waiting for a potentially life-saving clinical trial, “You will not get it”. A mum stopped me at the train station to say she was stockpiling medicine. They do not have the right to keep her up at night because she does not know if her child will survive. That is why this matters. After years of saying that no deal was a hoax, that it was a bluff, that it would not happen, we in this House have woken up to the reality of it, and now we have to make sure it does not happen. We have to go out and win that argument with the public, so that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) so rightly and eloquently said, we can walk out of here looking at the sky, not at our shoes.

Nicholas Soames: I rise to support this Bill, but before I do so, I want to make it clear that I have always believed that the referendum result must be honoured. Indeed, I voted for the withdrawal agreement on every occasion it was presented to the House, which is more than can be said for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and other members of the Cabinet whose serial disloyalty has been such an inspiration to so many of us. I think that history will in due course favour the view articulated so clearly last night by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) that a threat to  commit an act of self-harm if your counterparts in negotiations do not do exactly as you wish is not likely to be an effective or successful negotiating strategy.
The Bill is modest in its ambitions but powerful in its mandate. It merely seeks to avert the immediate risk of the disaster of a no-deal Brexit on 31 October and thereby seeks to give the Government and the House a further opportunity to achieve a resolution of this profoundly difficult issue. Contrary to the Prime Minister’s assertion, the Bill does not deprive him of the ability or flexibility to achieve a negotiated settlement with the EU on 17 October, but it does ensure that if he should fail, as with his current demands I think he is likely to do, there will be time for him to rethink his remarks.
I will not be standing at the next election.

Oliver Letwin: Will my right hon. Friend accept it from me—I think this view is shared not just on the Conservative Benches but across the House—that that would be a great loss to our Parliament?

Nicholas Soames: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, for whom I have such high regard.
I will not be standing at the next election, and I am thus approaching the end of 37 years’ service to this House, of which I have been proud and honoured beyond words to be a Member. I am truly very sad that it should end in this way. It is my fervent hope that this House will rediscover the spirit of compromise, humility and understanding that will enable us finally to push ahead with the vital work in the interests of the whole country that has inevitably had to be so sadly neglected while we have devoted so much time to wrestling with Brexit. I urge the House to support the Bill.

Stephen Gethins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Jane Dodds) on her maiden speech. I warn her that, although it may not look like it or feel like it, in normal parliamentary times I would still be in my first term, and there are a number of twists and turns that we have seen and that she should continue to expect.
As the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) has just illustrated so eloquently, there are very few positives to be taken from this process, but one of them has been the way in which those of us who disagree vociferously on many issues have been able to cross party lines and reach out. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his speech and for his service as well, and I thank other colleagues with whom I have had the privilege of being able to deal.

Nicholas Boles: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Gethins: I will give way once.

Nicholas Boles: I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene briefly. He has just paid tribute to the cross-party work to secure the Bill—hopefully—this evening. Does he agree that it is crucial—and I know that the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who is also part of our coalition,  has made plain his view—for us not only to secure the Bill in law, but to secure its implementation before any election is called or held, and not to allow the possibility of a re-elected Johnson Government who would then reintroduce a no-deal Brexit on 31 October?

Stephen Gethins: Yes. As usual, the hon. Gentleman has been a good colleague, and has made an excellent point. In a Parliament of minorities, we must work together. We want a general election, but we will not have a general election on the terms of this Government, because we do not trust them. None of us can trust them, and we should be absolutely clear about that.
Over the past few years—and I say this personally—it has often been humbling to see people give up careers and livelihoods for what they think is right, and we have seen the best of that over the past few days. There are Members opposite, and Members on these Benches who may not have started on these Benches, who know that a no-deal Brexit will damage their constituents. I never thought that I would be here proposing a Bill with the likes of the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) and the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond). To be fair to them, I do not think they thought that they would be here proposing a Bill—which might be passed—with a member of the Scottish National party. However, that is the position in which we have been left.
The Bill does not go as far as I might have liked. My SNP colleagues and I do not want to see Scotland taken out of the European Union against its will, and we want to stop Brexit. However, I know that others who have signed the Bill and will vote for it want to deliver Brexit. We disagree on that, which is fine, but we agree fundamentally that a no-deal Brexit is unacceptable and must be stopped at all costs.
This legislation is important, and I am sorry that we have a Government who cannot be trusted and who have tried every trick in the book to avoid scrutiny and democracy. Can Members imagine how we can be in a position whereby, over the weekend, the Government could be asked a legitimate question about whether or not they respect the rule of law? I hope that Members will reflect on that during the coming days. Unfortunately, it goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s approach. He is the least trustworthy resident of No. 10 Downing Street whom anyone can remember. We are in our present position because of a mess of his making. He had no plans before the referendum, and he has no plans now.
There is nothing new in the negotiations, and the Ministers have told us nothing new about them. Instead, we have a Government who are perfectly willing to let the rest of the population endure food price increases when too many people already depend on food banks, medical shortages that will hit the most needy and vulnerable, and damage to public services that have already been hit by a decade of austerity, depriving our young people of education and employment opportunities that my generation enjoyed and benefited from.
All of us in Parliament should be doing our utmost to support and protect those people. That is a basic tenet of our democracy. This slash-and-burn approach to politics will damage everyone across these islands and Europe for decades, but most of all it will damage  people in the United Kingdom. We can stop it now, and we can do so with legislation. We owe that to the most vulnerable, and to those who will be worst affected.

Bill Cash: I want to refer briefly to the remarks of the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt). I simply want to explain very simply that I was going to intervene because he referred to the sacrifice that people had made in the last war and I want to put it on record that my father was killed in the last war, and I think I understand not only the issues involved in that, but also the fact that he fought for freedom, and I believe that that is our heritage, and that is what we should fight for—not to be governed by other people. I just leave that on the record.
I happen also to very much agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) on what is an extremely rare occasion when somebody has actually explained, as I have a number of times, that there is nothing in this arrangement that has been foisted upon us that would prevent us from leaving without a deal. We can do so if we wish to do so, and there is nothing in the referendum Act, or any question in the Act, which constrains us from that course of action.
Fundamentally, I simply want to make the following point. I would not call this the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill; I would call it the European Union (Subservience) Bill. We have only to look at the words in the Bill, and in the very short time that I have available I will simply refer to a few of its phrases. Clause 1 says:
“The Prime Minister must seek to obtain from the European Council an extension of the period”.
Clause 3 states:
“If the European Council decides to agree an extension…the Prime Minister must, immediately after such a decision is made, notify the President of the European Council that the United Kingdom agrees to the proposed extension”
and so on.
Clause 4 says, in relation to the withdrawal Act of 2018 that, where regulations are to be made, for the definition of exit day
“for ‘may’ substitute ‘must’.”
This is a disgraceful reversal of our constitutional arrangements. We operate in a free Parliament where we have elections that are taken periodically—every five years as a normal rule—and we make our decisions. We have a system of parliamentary Government, not government by Parliament; that is a fundamental constitutional principle. This Bill offends that principle, and that is why I am deeply opposed to its proposals.

Joan Ryan: I strongly support the Bill before the House and have long believed that a no-deal Brexit would be disastrous. Resolving this issue and stopping our country crashing out of the EU is of the utmost urgency, as I believe that the Prime Minister wants no deal. All the actions of the current Prime Minister support that view as does everything he has said since becoming Prime Minister. He is sending our country hurtling towards no deal. This is a prospect no  one voted for, or campaigned for, in 2016. It is simply wrong to be playing with people’s lives, jobs, businesses and wellbeing in this way.
At Brimsdown in Enfield we have the second largest industrial estate in London. It is a vital part of our local economy, with 8,000 people employed in 240 companies on site. Many of these companies trade throughout the EU. If we crash out with no deal and these companies get hit by tariffs on their exports, Brimsdown and Enfield will suffer.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday promised to help firms hit by no-deal tariffs but gave no full details on how that would work in practice, nor is he willing to publish estimates of the impact no-deal tariffs could have on various sectors. How much financial support would be made available to companies? How long would that support last for? Which businesses would and would not be covered by Government subsidy? There are so many questions and never any answers.
In Enfield we also have very high levels of deprivation that are growing apace. We have nearly 40,000 children living on or below the poverty line, but a no-deal Brexit or a general election are not going to stop this nightmare; they would exacerbate exponentially the problems my constituents are facing.
We hear much about the technicalities of all this every time it is debated, and particularly today. Those who want a no-deal Brexit or any kind of Brexit at any price want to talk all the time about technicalities. I want to see Members of this House take real responsibility for the impact that a no-deal Brexit would have on our constituents, particularly the most vulnerable of them. It is an abrogation of our responsibility as their representatives to go down this road, and let us be clear that a no deal will just be the start. I believe that the only way out of this mess is to go back to the people with a people’s vote on Brexit, but at the very least we must take the catastrophe of no deal off the table now. I urge all Members to support the Bill today.

Antoinette Sandbach: I want to put on record what a pleasure it has been to serve my constituents in Eddisbury. I think they would be amazed to know that the purge of the Conservative party that took place yesterday led to their Member of Parliament being expelled from the party, together with eight Privy Counsellors, two former Chancellors, a former Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who has been a political inspiration to me for years. The economic arguments are well known, but in my constituency, where the chemicals, car, pharmaceuticals, aerospace and nuclear industries and the food and drink sectors are all key sectors in the north-west, 80,000 jobs are at risk in a no-deal Brexit. I do not regret putting my job on the line to save my constituents’ jobs, but I do regret that the Prime Minister forced me to do it. I want to say to Conservative colleagues that no deal is not the end of Brexit. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) said yesterday that he wanted Brexit to be over, to focus on other issues that matter to his constituents. I agree; so do I. I voted for the deal three times. However, keeping the threat of no deal on the table does not achieve this.
I say this to my Prime Minister: the reason that your negotiations are undermined is not because of a no-deal Brexit, but because the Europeans cannot see the steps that you are taking to build consensus in this House and get any concessions given to you through Parliament. That is what puts you in the weaker position, not a threat of no deal. Without the public and Europe being able to see how you are trying to build consensus in this House, and how this party, this Government, this House and this Parliament are trying to work together to get a solution, you will not get concessions from Europe. It is the people in this House who voted down the compromise—the withdrawal agreement—that have brought us to the brink of a no-deal precipice. I believe in the principle that Parliament should have a say in one of the biggest questions of our times, and tonight we should stand up.

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is on a point that has not been sufficiently emphasised. Does she agree that, at root, the horrors that those of us who find ourselves estranged from the party we love have gone through over the past 18 months derive from the inability of successive Governments to find a compromise?

Antoinette Sandbach: I completely agree. This is a result of the inability of successive Governments to work cross-party across the House to seek common ground, common agreement and common principles. I know many people in this place from all sides of the political divide, and I am certain that there is a will and a way to get through this, but I just have not seen the leadership from the Front Benches to argue for it. That has been my biggest shame in being a Member of this Parliament for the past three years: not seeing proper leadership out there to build our country back together again, to get people to work together and to explain in our constituencies why we should honour the referendum result but do so in a way that will maximise the chances of a positive relationship with Europe and give us the best foundations to build on for the future. That is why I say that Parliament should have a say in the biggest question of our time. If we cannot get that leadership on the Front Benches, Parliament needs to provide that leadership to the country.

Caroline Flint: May I extend my best wishes to the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames)? I will miss our occasional lift encounters in Portcullis House—[Interruption.] Hang on, do not use up all my three minutes on that, because it is not for today.
I have voted for a deal twice, and I would have voted for the withdrawal agreement Bill, so I have probably voted for a deal more times than some prominent members of the present Government. However, I have also opposed no deal more times than some of the ex-Cabinet members and Ministers who are supporting this Bill today. I have been trying to seek compromise, but the decision on the UK’s departure from the European Union that we delegated to the British people has been dogged by a lack of compromise on both sides. Hard-line leavers and hard-line remainers have succeeded in turning a complicated decision into a crisis. Between them, they are eroding the trust and patience of the British people.
Today’s debate is born of the understandable fear that the UK will leave with no deal and that that will cause avoidable damage to our economy. It is born of a fear that the Prime Minister—I hope I am not using unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker—is insincere in his stated intention of reaching a deal with the EU27. However, others in the House must also be self-critical. It is disingenuous for someone to tell the public that they are against no deal if they are really also against any deal and, indeed, against Brexit. If the EU27 can accept a deal, however revised, it must be better for the UK and the EU27 than no deal.
Therefore, if the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) are selected today, I urge colleagues to support them, because they would tie an extension to securing a deal, which is the proper way forward.

Jeremy Wright: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Caroline Flint: I will give way, but only once.

Jeremy Wright: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way and pay tribute to her for the way in which she has sought compromise. Many of us have voted for deals of various kinds, and I agree with what she says about the approach set out by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), which has considerable potential. Does she agree that one of the other reasons why we should seek to resolve this by way of a deal, and do so quickly, is that the longer the argument goes on, the more divided our society remains and the harder it will be to knit it back together? The danger of an approach that simply asks for a further extension, without any real idea of what we will use the extension for, is that that argument is perpetuated and the damage continues to be done.

Caroline Flint: I absolutely agree. One of my greatest concerns in all this is that, following a referendum that saw such a massive record turnout, there are many people who will never vote again if we continue to thwart a conclusion, and that will damage our democracy for decades to come. I am saddened that some in this House think that our only obligation is to the 48% and that others think we only need to consider the 52%. We need to respect the British people, whether they voted leave or remain and whichever party they support. We must show them that we can move forward and not simply block progress at every stage.
I want to look my leave voters in the eye and say, “Yes, I respected, as a remain voter, the decision to leave. We have now left. We will regain control of our laws and borders.” To remain supporters, whom I stood alongside in 2016, I want to say, “Yes, we respected the decision to leave, but we have successfully protected the things that you and I value most: open trade with the EU, workers’ rights, high environmental standards, rights for Brits abroad, respect for EU citizens working here, student exchange programmes, joint research projects”—I could go on. All of that can be secured, but only with a deal.
No deal is a decision, but one that defers 100 decisions. I urge the Government to secure a deal before 31 October, and I am willing to work every day and every hour to make that happen. However, other colleagues must also  show some compromise as well. We must link an extension to securing a deal, because an extension with no purpose is not the way forward.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I would like to call two more speakers, but I want the Secretary of State to be on his feet no later than 4.50 pm.

Edward Leigh: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), and I agree with virtually everything she says.
It is a pleasure to have listened to my right hon. Friends the Members for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), with whom I have served in this House for 36 years. I know they do not want to stand again, but if they were to stand, I would want to stand with them shoulder to shoulder as a Conservative candidate.
There are procedures for dealing with this sort of issue, but I very much hope that those like my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) who voted for their conscience—I do not agree with him, but he did vote for his conscience—can find a way to stand again for our party. The trouble with purges is that if one group of people is purged, another group of people might have to be purged when we try to push a deal through Parliament, so I think we need compromise.
Indeed, that is the whole point of what I want to say today. I am a Brexiteer and my constituency voted 62:38 for Brexit, but I am in a bit of a minority here because I voted for the deal three times. We hear so much about how terrible a no deal is, but so many people in this place voted against the deal three times. We could have had Brexit by now. This whole thing could have been resolved, and I still want to resolve it. I still believe it is perfectly possible to make progress in these negotiations in the coming weeks.
So much ink has been wasted on the backstop, and there has been so much debate about something that will never happen. I do not believe, and I do not think anybody believes for a moment, that the backstop will ever happen. Nobody intends to impose a hard border, and there are so many ways to resolve this. We are this close to resolving the issue, and there has been so much talk about how we do not trust the Prime Minister and how he wants a no deal. I genuinely believe that he and the Cabinet want to achieve an orderly Brexit, but the problem they face is that the present deal simply cannot get through Parliament, so they have to make progress.
We had the Brady amendment, so we can win a vote in this place. I do not want to make a bore of myself by going on about devices such as the Vienna convention, which I have mentioned many times, but they are all possible. The trouble with this Bill is that if it is passed—I know this has been said many times, but it is an unanswerable point—there will be absolutely no incentive for the EU to make any progress, and therefore it drives a coach and horses through our negotiating tactics.
I end with an argument that might appeal to the Labour party. At the October 1957 Labour party conference, Aneurin Bevan said:
“if you carry this resolution”—
the resolution was on unilateral disarmament—
“you will send a Foreign Secretary…naked into the conference chamber.”
That is what we will be doing if we pass this Bill, so let us compromise, let us draw together and let us get a deal.

Justin Madders: Vauxhall Motors in Ellesmere Port has been producing cars for over 50 years. It employs around 1,000 people, with many thousands more in the supply chain and associated businesses, but statements made by the parent group over the summer have made it crystal clear that the plant’s very existence is dependent on the UK avoiding a no-deal Brexit.
We know the plant faces challenges, as every car manufacturer does, but in the past, with the help of the Government, management and unions, everyone has pulled together to make it work, but now we have the absurdity of the Government actively pursuing a policy that will destroy the industry. WTO terms mean a 10% tariff on all car exports, and around 80% of the vehicles built in Ellesmere Port are exported to the EU. We know the plant just will not be able to compete with other plants across Europe with a 10% albatross around its neck. It is as stark as that: no deal means no Vauxhall.
I have always said that I will abide by the outcome of the referendum, but that does not mean I will do so at any cost, and certainly not at the cost of my constituents’ jobs, which is where we are now. The Government are effectively asking me to put my constituents on the dole queue, and I cannot in all conscience do that. I am astounded that any Government would choose that course of action, so let us be clear about where we are.
The Conservative party, which used to have a reputation as the party of business, has purged itself of 21 Members who voted against a policy that they know could knock 10% off the economy. If anyone had said a year ago that that is where we would find ourselves, I would not have believed them, but such is the reckless ideological madness we see from the Government. That is exactly where we are today.
The Prime Minister tells us that he cannot negotiate with the EU if a no deal is taken off the table, but given that he claims the primary change he wants to make is on the Irish backstop, which is a very specific issue, there seems to be no connection between the changes he says he wants to make and the need to keep the threat of no deal on the table.
I am, as many hon. Members are, at a loss to understand how the Prime Minister can reconcile his statement yesterday—that the first thing the EU asks in respect of any proposals made by the Government is whether they have the support of Parliament—with his refusal to share his proposals with Parliament. How can he say we would support his proposals if we do not even know what they are?
It is not only the automotive sector in my constituency that is under threat: aerospace, chemicals and petroleum, to name but three, employ thousands of people whose jobs are at risk from a no-deal Brexit. I have just come from a briefing by the Road Haulage Association, which has clearly said the sector is not ready for a no-deal  Brexit on 31 October; it says that with just 42 working days left it still does not know what the customs documentation process will be or who it can go to for advice. It is doing what it can, but at the moment we face haulage businesses going bust and food rotting on lorries because it cannot be delivered on time, leaving aside the effect that will be had on medicine supplies.
So let us, as a country and as a Parliament, pull ourselves back from the edge at the eleventh hour. Let us have a moment of clarity. Let us have a moment of reason and of compromise, so that we do not force Brexit through by 31 October regardless of the consequences, because those consequences will be devastating and enduring, and they will do nothing to heal the deep divisions that have led us here in the first place.

Stephen Barclay: May I begin by paying tribute to the new hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Jane Dodds), who spoke with great distinction on behalf of her constituency?
As they indicated that they may have been making their final speeches in the House, may I also pay tribute to my colleagues the right hon. Members for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who have served with great ability and courtesy throughout my time in the House?
The central issue before the House is whether the Government’s negotiation is sincere and deliverable. The Opposition have continued to refuse to vote for a deal, while making it clear that they will rule out no deal. As the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) pointed out, there is an inherent contradiction in that position.
The problem with this Bill is, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) made clear, that there is no incentive for the EU to move, because it gives the EU complete control of the outcome of these talks. Let me remind the House that President Tusk, and others within the EU, have repeatedly said that they do not want the UK to leave. He has said,
“If a deal is impossible, and no-one wants no deal, then who will finally have the courage to say what the only positive solution is?”
So let us be in no doubt: those on the other side of the negotiation do not want the UK to leave. They do not want to lose the financial contribution of 12% of the EU budget that the UK pays or the £1 billion per month that this extension will mean. So there will be no incentive for the EU to move and this, in practice, will be legislation that will act as purgatory and endless delay.

Stephen Doughty: Of course it was the Government’s own chief adviser who described the negotiations as “a sham”, so we know what is really going on. I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether it is true that members of the Government Legal Service have been requested, in the past two days, to provide advice on all tactics possible to avoid this Bill receiving Royal Assent. Is that true—yes or no?

Stephen Barclay: The Prime Minister addressed the issue about Royal Assent during his statement yesterday and Ministers abide by the code. The hon. Gentleman says that the negotiation is a sham, yet one should look at what the Commission has said. At Strasbourg, it said that alternative arrangements had merit as an alternative to the backstop. Just last month, the Council pledged, in its official guidelines on Brexit negotiations, “flexible and imaginative solutions.” Senior European figures claim the backstop will not be required. For example, a former German MEP and member of the European Parliament Brexit steering group said there was a
“99% chance that the backstop would never be used.”
Indeed, the issue arises because of the sequencing of talks, which was at the choice of the EU itself and left insufficient time for the negotiation. In fact, this issue should be addressed as part of the future economic relationship.
In addressing issues such as the claim made by those on the Opposition Benches, it is worth reflecting on the fact that the EU position has moved, from the language of “no change” to the withdrawal agreement to now saying that changes can be made if “legally operative text” on alternative arrangements can be found. It is worth contrasting Donald Tusk’s comments in June that
“nothing has changed when it comes to our position”,
with President Macron’s comments last month that he was “very confident” that the UK and EU would be able to find a solution
“if there is a good will on both sides”.

Jim McMahon: Is the truth not that Government Members just do not trust the Prime Minister any more than Opposition Members? When he went to Berlin on 21 August, the Prime Minister committed to presenting a deal within 30 days. We are now a third of the way through that timetable and the truth is that there is no deal. That is the problem.

Stephen Barclay: The hon. Gentleman says this is about trust in this Prime Minister, but he voted against the deal that the previous Prime Minister brought back three times. The trust is lacking in those who trusted the Labour manifesto that promised to respect the referendum result.
It is worth looking at the communiqué issued by the Commission at lunch time. I am sure Members will have read it and seen, first, very little detail on the Irish border, and, secondly, that the Commission’s objective in a no-deal situation would be
“a more stable solution for the period thereafter.”
So the Commission’s own communiqué falls short of the demand for an all-weather, all-insurance, legally operative text, which is the condition it has set the United Kingdom. The legal text by 31 October will of course set out the detail, but the test needs to be one that involves creativity and flexibility on both sides. It also needs to reflect the fact that the operational detail will be shaped by the Joint Committee during the implementation period. An illustration of that point can be seen in the response to the detail presented by the previous Government. The right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) spoke about  his concerns about the detail, but he will remember that when the previous Government simply presented detail against that all-weather test, the Commission dismissed it as purely magical thinking.

Sylvia Hermon: My patience has been rewarded; I am enormously grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene.
The Secretary of State will be well aware that the Prime Minister claimed in August that the backstop contravenes the consent principle in the Good Friday agreement. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to correct the record? The backstop in no way compromises the consent principle in the Good Friday agreement. It is important to have that on the record.

Stephen Barclay: There are two issues in relation to that point. First, the Prime Minister has concerns about the rule-taking element of the backstop, under which those in Northern Ireland will continue to take rules on which they will not have a say. Secondly, there is the concern that the element of consent from both parts of the community in Northern Ireland is undermined.
To address the hon. Lady’s earlier intervention in respect of contact with the Irish Government, the Prime Minister will discuss the issues around the alternative arrangements with the Taoiseach on Monday. That will build on considerable other interaction with the Irish Government—for example, I had a meeting with Simon Coveney in the Irish embassy in Paris last week, and the Foreign Secretary met him in the same week. There has been extensive contact with the Irish Government.
The Prime Minister’s EU sherpa is in Brussels today. The last round of technical talks was last week and he will have further talks on Wednesday to explore much of this detail. But the detail needs to be in place at the end of the implementation period, which is the end of 2020—or even potentially, by mutual agreement, at the end of a further one or two years. The timescale, therefore, is realistic and negotiable—

Peter Kyle: Are you talking about the Bill?

Stephen Barclay: The Bill? I am very happy to talk about the Bill. The issue for the hon. Gentleman is that he talks about voting against no deal, but he should come clean and admit that actually he is opposed to Brexit entirely. The public want Brexit delivered. The business community wants certainty. The Bill will leave our negotiations in purgatory, with a third extension after more than three years. Much has been made about parliamentary time—about the period between now and 14 October—but the EU itself says that a deal would not be struck until the eleventh hour, and that it would take until 17 October for the EU Council to reach a decision. The issue is not the time that is spent in September, but the time between 17 October and 31 October.
Over the summer, this new Government have narrowed their negotiating asks, as set out in the letter to President Tusk. They have targeted their request on the withdrawal agreement and a best-in-class free trade agreement. This is a Bill that is intended to stop Brexit. I urge colleagues to oppose it.
The Speaker put the Question (Order, 3 September), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 300.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, 3 September).

EUROPEAN UNION (WITHDRAWAL)  (NO. 6) BILL

Considered in Committee (Order, 3 September)
[Sir Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]

Mike Penning: On a point of order, Sir Lindsay. We are about to debate in Committee, under your chairmanship, amendments that are not available to Members. I have just been to the Vote Office to try to find the amendments. [Interruption.] They have become available now, but they were not available five minutes ago. How can we possibly debate such an important issue without the amendments being released earlier?

Lindsay Hoyle: The amendments have not yet been selected for voting. They were allowed to be tabled until 5 o’clock, so there had to be time for that. If you were to go now, they should be listed, but the amendments to be voted on have not been chosen yet. During the next two hours, I am sure that a man as competent as yourself will keep up with what changes may come.

Mike Penning: Possibly.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am confident of that.

Clause 1

Duties in connection with the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union

Richard Graham: I beg to move amendment 19, in clause1,page1,line3,leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
‘(1A) After this Act has been passed, but no later than 21 October 2019, the Prime Minister of State must make arrangements for—
(a) motion to the effect that the House of Commons has approved an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, to be moved in the House of Commons by a Minister of the Crown; and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the agreement, to be moved in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown.
(1B) If the House of Commons decides to approve the motion in paragraph (a), subsection (4) must be complied with.’
The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that debate takes place after the European Council meeting on 17/18 October 2019 on either the existing withdrawal agreement or any new withdrawal agreement that may have been agreed.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 8, page1,line16,leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 9, page2,line8,leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) If the condition in subsection (1) is not satisfied, subsection (4) shall apply.’
Amendment 10, page2,line10,leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) The Prime Minister shall seek to discuss with the European Council a further short extension of the period under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00 pm on 31 October 2019   by sending to the President of the European Council a letter in the form set out in Schedule [Form of letter from the Prime Minister to the President of the European Council (No. 2)].’
Amendment 20, page2,line12,leave out from “2019” to end of line 17.
The intention of this Amendment is to ensure that if the House of Commons approves a withdrawal agreement, the Prime Minister must seek an extension of the period under Article 50(3) TEU.
Amendment 6, page2,line14,at end, insert
‘in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.’
This amendment would set out as the purpose of seeking an extension under Article 50(3) TEU the passage of a Withdrawal Agreement Bill based on the outcome of the inter-party talks which concluded in May 2019 – see NC1 for contents of the Bill and Amendment XX for text of the request letter to the European Council.
Amendment 11, page2,line15,leave out subsection (5).
Clause stand part.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 22, in clause3,page2,line43,leave out subsections (1) to (3).
The intention of this Amendment is to remove the requirement to accept whatever extension is decided on by the European Council while preserving the flexibility in subsection (4) to agree an extension otherwise than under this Act.
Amendment 25, page3,line3,leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 23, page3,line19,leave out “section” and insert “Act”.
The Amendment is consequential on Amendment 22 leaving out subsections 3(1) to 3(3).
Clauses 3 and 4 stand part.
Amendment 15, in clause5,page3,line31,leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 16, page3,line35,leave out subsection (5) and insert—
‘(5) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
(5A) The remaining provisions of this Act come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.
(5B) No regulations may be made under subsection (5A) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
Amendment 17, page3,line35,leave out from “force” to end and insert “on 22 October 2019.”
Clause 5 stand part.
New clause 1—Publication of Withdrawal Agreement Bill—
‘(1) The Prime Minister must within the period of five days, not including any Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, beginning with the day on which this Act is passed publish a copy of a draft Bill to implement the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
(2) The draft Bill must include provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular—
(a) provision for the Government to seek to conclude alternative arrangements to replace the backstop by December 2020;
(b) a commitment that, should the backstop come into force, the Government will ensure that Great Britain will stay aligned with Northern Ireland and to incorporate in United Kingdom law paragraph 50 of the 2017 joint report from the negotiators of the European Union and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 TEU on the United Kingdom’s orderly withdrawal from the European Union (TF50 (2017) 19);
(c) provision for the negotiating objectives and final treaties for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union to be approved by the House of Commons;
(d) legislation on workers’ rights to guarantee workers’ rights in the future in the United Kingdom will be no less favourable than comparable workers’ rights in the European Union;
(e) provisions ensuring that there will be no change in the level of environmental protection applicable in the United Kingdom after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, and to establish an independent office of environmental protection, able to uphold standards and enforce compliance;
(f) a requirement for the United Kingdom to seek as close to frictionless trade in goods with the European Union as possible, while outside the single market and ending free movement;
(g) a requirement for the United Kingdom to keep up to date with European Union rules for goods and agri-food products that are relevant to checks at the border in order to protect employment that depends on just-in-time supply chains;
(h) a customs compromise for the House of Commons to decide upon;
(i) an opportunity for a decision to be made by the House of Commons whether the implementation of the withdrawal agreement should be subject to a referendum; and
(j) a duty for Ministers of the Crown to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the provisions in this subsection.’
This New Clause would require the publication of a Withdrawal Agreement Bill incorporating the ten headline points from the inter-party talks which concluded in May 2019.
Amendment 7,schedule, page4,line10, at end insert
‘I wish to make clear to European Council colleagues that the purpose of this proposed extension is for the UK Parliament to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.’
This amendment would require the Prime Minister to set out in the letter to the President of the European Council seeking an extension under Article 50(3) TEU that the reason for seeking an extension is to pass a Withdrawal Agreement Bill based on the outcome of the inter-party talks which concluded in May 2019 — see NC1 for contents of the Bill.
That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
New schedule 2—Form of letter from the Prime Minister to the President of the European Council—
‘Dear Mr President
The UK Parliament has passed the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019. Its provisions now require Her Majesty’s Government to seek to discuss an extension of the period provided   under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty, currently due to expire at 11.00pm GMT on 31 October 2019.
I am writing therefore to inform the European Council that the United Kingdom wishes to discuss a further short extension to the period provided under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, including as applied by Article 106a of the Euratom Treaty.
Yours sincerely,
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.’

Richard Graham: I rise to seek colleagues’ patience in proposing something that I believe is a compromise that many Members in this House have long sought and many people have expressed support for. The compromise goes like this. There are many of us on both sides of this House who do not want no deal and yet, as has been pointed out by many Members, including the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), many colleagues have not supported a deal. My simple amendment to the Bill would require the Government to have a vote on Monday 21 October—the first sitting day after the EU Council—on a deal, whether it be a new deal or the previous deal. Should that vote be successful and approved by Members of this House, the Government would be required, if they needed more time, to ask for an extension from the European Union, purely in order to get the legislation through Parliament.
Whereas other amendments that will be debated today require the Government to ask for an extension and then set about trying to find the deal, mine does the opposite. It gives us all the chance to vote for either the existing deal previously negotiated by the last Government or whatever new deal is successfully negotiated by the new Government. That means that everyone in this House who wishes to prevent no deal would have the chance to do so by voting for that deal. I hope that many colleagues around this House who have been able to prevent making a decision between a deal and no deal would realise that that was the last chance to do that—merely a week before no deal became the default on 31 October.
I know there are some colleagues for whom the business of asking for an extension is part of the circuit of trying to prevent Brexit from happening at all, and I understand that. However, I believe there may be a majority in this House who have accepted the will of the people in the referendum, and who have said and told their constituents that they respect the referendum result, and a lot of us were elected on a manifesto pledge to do so. This would be the moment when we could put that to the test and vote for a deal.

Alex Sobel: The hon. Gentleman’s amendment mentions our having a motion of the House. The last time we had a withdrawal agreement motion, we had five days of debate. Is there sufficient time to have five days of debate before 31 October, if we pass his amendment?

Richard Graham: The short answer to that is almost certainly no. However, we have had not just five days of debate, but weeks and months and years of debate on these issues. The previous deal, which I regarded as a good deal, was debated ad infinitum in this House. I do not believe that we would need five more days of debate to be able to reach a decision about whether we wanted a deal or no deal.

Sandy Martin: The hon. Gentleman says that he regarded that deal as a good deal. However, a very large number of Members in this House do not regard it as a good deal. His amendment, proposed in the way it is, seems to suggest that this is a binary choice. It is not a binary choice. We want a deal that actually satisfies the reasons why we think we need to get the best out of a Brexit deal or remain, and this does not enable us to do that.

Richard Graham: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point of view. There are 650 Members of this House, all of whom, if we designed the perfect deal ourselves individually, would have differences from each other. However, we are at the stage where I believe the vast majority of people in this country want this issue resolved. Therefore, if we are to decide whether we want to accept a default position of no deal because we cannot reach agreement on a deal, this would be the moment for all of us to ask ourselves what we really want: do we really want a deal at all, or are we prepared to go straight to a no deal?
My amendment does not call for the Government to have a vote on no deal. It accepts that, if the vote for a deal were lost, this Parliament would have had myriad opportunities to support a deal and would, in that situation, have failed. I believe this amendment is fair to almost every point of view in this House. It gives us all one last chance to vote for a deal if we do not want no deal.

Neil Gray: The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is of course predicated on the Prime Minister actually negotiating a new deal. What evidence does he have, because I cannot see any, of there even being a negotiating team in place, as the 30 days evaporate like snow off a dyke? Can he show us that there is any evidence of a new deal coming back from this Prime Minister?

Richard Graham: In fact, the hon. Gentleman misreads part of the point of my amendment, which is not to prejudge whether or not the Prime Minister and this Government come back with a deal. I believe the Government are genuinely trying to get a deal, but it is perfectly possible either that they do not succeed, or—this would be the hon. Gentleman’s view—that they are not really trying that hard. In either of those events, my amendment would allow this House to vote on the deal that was put before this House previously. It would give everybody one more chance—the hon. Gentleman’s party says it is against no deal—a chance to vote for a deal. If, in that situation, the House were to say, “We don’t like this deal: it’s not good enough for us”, there could be no hiding from anyone in this country about why we had gone for no deal. It would be because this House failed the final opportunity to prevent that. I believe, in that situation, this is fair to everyone.

Jim Shannon: Surely, the withdrawal agreement was rejected on the three times that it came to the House, and the backstop was a clear issue on each of those three times. If that continues to be the case, would the hon. Gentleman still insist on pushing for a withdrawal agreement that insists on the backstop? Clearly, for us, the backstop has to be removed, and that is the opinion of the Prime Minister, and, I understand, this Government.

Richard Graham: My amendment suggests that there are three options for this House to vote for on Monday 21 October. The first is the withdrawal agreement as it was presented to the House previously. The second is the withdrawal agreement plus the cross-party agreement that was reached, but was never voted on in this House. The third is any new deal arrived at by the Government. In that situation, Members would have the chance to vote for a deal and prevent no deal, which many of us feel could have dire consequences.

Alex Chalk: My hon. Friend is coming up with such sensible provisions. Does he agree that this would smoke out those who claim to want to avoid no deal but, truth be told, vote against every route to avoid it? This would smoke them out. If they vote for this, they will truly be avoiding no deal.

Richard Graham: My constituency neighbour is absolutely right, but my aim is not so much to smoke out—to use his phrase—the motives and underlying thoughts of colleagues across this House, but to give all of us the opportunity to say, ultimately, what we really prefer: is it a deal or is it no deal? In that sense, he is absolutely right.

Harriett Baldwin: I thank my hon. Friend for the thoughtful way in which he is setting out his case. He and I both just voted against the principle of this Bill on Second Reading, largely because we want the Prime Minister to have the strongest possible hand in his negotiations with the European Union. I shall listen carefully to the Minister’s response, but does my hon. Friend think that by agreeing this amendment tonight the House would in any way weaken the Prime Minister’s negotiating hand?

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. One reason I drafted this very short amendment in the way that I did, with the help of the Clerks, was precisely not to take away the pads or gloves of the Government’s batsmen when they go into negotiations with the European Union, because this way would not predetermine the result of their negotiations at all. It would allow them to seek the deal that I believe—contrary to what some colleagues from the Scottish National party are saying—they are sincere about. If they were unsuccessful, it would still give the rest of us a chance to have a vote on a deal before no deal became the default option, so she is absolutely correct. This is not designed to weaken the Government’s stance in any way, but rather to allow their sincerity to give us the chance to express our view.

Neil O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant contribution in bringing forward this amendment. I voted for the withdrawal agreement. I was proud to do so, because the only way to stop no deal is to vote for a deal. I hope and expect that our new Prime Minister will get an even better deal than the last one, but my hon. Friend’s amendment really would preserve the freedom of action of this House and give us a lifeboat if things went wrong. I will support it in the strongest possible terms.

Richard Graham: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the key point: when constituents ask us, “Will this House have the final say before we go to a no-deal exit from the European Union?”, my answer is that I believe we should have a chance to vote once more, and this amendment would provide that.

Angus MacNeil: Given what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do and what he is saying, some of us are concerned that the Prime Minister is talking of a cut-and-run general election before the calamity befalls him on Halloween. The hon. Gentleman, I take it, would never under any circumstances support a cut-and-run general election before the Halloween calamity of the Prime Minister’s Brexit.

Richard Graham: It is a perfectly valid point that this short amendment does not allow for every conceivable possibility that might exist out there. It does not—unlike this Bill, tabled by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn)—sketch out the precise wording of the letter that the Prime Minister should write to the European Union, for example. The Prime Minister said that Parliament would be prorogued until 14 October, after which the European Council meets. Monday 21 October is the first sitting day after that Council. It is to me—I may be naïve—inconceivable that the Government would not be here that day and would not allow that debate if Parliament had passed this amendment. I am, to some extent, taking on faith what I, and we, have been told about this Government’s plans, but I believe that that is a reasonable position to take.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. Before the next speaker, in these days of Twitter I would just like to correct the amendment paper. Some people might be surprised to find my name leading amendments with the hon. Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), although probably not as surprised as those right hon. and hon. Members. [Laughter.] I would just like everybody to know that this is a drafting error. It can happen from time to time and I am not bothered in any sense, but I just wanted to make that clear.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is a great point of correction. I think the hon. Gentleman would be very dizzy if he went that far south.

Stephen Kinnock: I rise to speak in favour of amendments 6 and 7 and new clause 1, which have been tabled in my name and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and many other Members across the Committee. Before I do, however, I want to briefly say that I will be voting for the Bill this evening. That is because I have always been clear that the worst possible Brexit outcome would be a catastrophic no-deal crash-out that severely damages the security and economy of our country and our communities. This is why an extension of any kind is far superior to crashing out on 31 October.
I and other colleagues from across the Committee are, however, deeply concerned that it is nearly three years since MPs voted to trigger article 50 to leave the EU and  our nation is still stuck in limbo. We believe that if the UK does not specify the purpose of the extension, we will end up in exactly the same position on 4 January as we are in today on 4 September. The public are getting increasingly tired of this and, like Parliament, increasingly polarised. Finding compromise, or indeed any route forward, will only become more difficult as time goes on. A further extension to the timetable to leave the EU without a very good, clearly defined purpose will leave most of the country banging their heads against a brick wall. The public are fed up of talking and hearing about Brexit. Most people, regardless of what some campaigners may like to tell themselves, would like to see the referendum result honoured. Therefore, amendments 6 and 7, together with new clause 1, aim to set a purpose for the extension request until 31 January. The explicit purpose, we state, should be to pass a Brexit Bill, and, more specifically, to pass something similar to the withdrawal agreement Bill that was drafted in May 2019 as a result of cross-party talks.

Andrew Percy: I have worked with the hon. Gentleman on a couple of issues over the past few years and I think he does want to make good on the referendum. The problem with his extension, of course, is that we have repeatedly heard from Members saying that they want to respect the will of the referendum, but every time we come to a vote on the matter there is always a reason why they cannot quite bring themselves to trot into the Lobby and vote for the withdrawal agreement. We have had three occasions on which we could have voted for the withdrawal agreement, and four other occasions on which to express an opinion in favour of Norway, the European Free Trade Association or the European economic area. Every single time, the same MPs trot up and say they support the referendum result but when it comes to the vote they vote to block Brexit, so what is going to be different this time?

Stephen Kinnock: I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the meaningful votes that took place are a very different kettle of fish from what was produced by the cross-party talks. As I will say later in my speech, the cross-party talks contained a number of extremely important compromises and concessions from Labour Members. It is therefore a travesty that this Parliament never had the opportunity to debate or vote on the withdrawal agreement Bill. It is a different kettle of fish from what went before. For those with short memories, the withdrawal agreement Bill was very different from the former Prime Minister’s initial so-called “blind Brexit”—which was rejected three times by this House—because it contained 10 major concessions that gave far more clarity on the UK-EU relationship. We were not prepared to give carte blanche to the Government.
The cross-party talks gave the detail that we need. That was a direct result of the hard work of Opposition and Government Front Benchers and negotiating teams over the course of six weeks of serious talks. The concessions included a customs union compromise, with a binding vote on post-Brexit customs arrangements; a workers’ rights Bill that would guarantee that employment rights in the UK would not lag behind those of the EU; a pledge that the UK would see no change in the level of environmental protection after Brexit; a promise to seek as close to frictionless trade in goods with the EU as possible while being outside the single market and ending  free movement; a commitment to having parliamentary time to allow for a vote at Committee stage on whether the deal should be put to a second referendum; an assurance to MPs that they must have the final say on the future UK’s relationship with the EU; and a promise that Northern Ireland would stay aligned with the rest of the UK on regulations and customs, even if the backstop were to come into force.

Harriett Baldwin: I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman is approaching this debate and his amendments. Will he clarify whether the 10 changes that he outlines would involve changing anything in the 585-page withdrawal agreement?

Stephen Kinnock: The 585-page withdrawal agreement would remain intact, because those are the separation issues. All these issues relate to the future relationship, which the EU has made clear it is open to amending. The future relationship is, of course, a political declaration. The reasons why Labour Members were opposed to previous deals were that there was so little detail on the future relationship, and frankly, that we had said repeatedly that the Government should, rather going to the wrong extreme in this debate, reach out to Labour Members. Finally, the former Prime Minister agreed to do that. We had the cross-party talks, and it is a travesty that this House never had the opportunity to debate and vote on those issues.

Norman Lamb: As someone who feels very strongly that the polarisation in this debate has been immensely damaging for our country and that there are not enough people finding ways of bringing our country back together again, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he shares my view that this is a route to achieving a compromise—an art that appears to have been lost in this place at present—and perhaps a way for someone such as me, who believes in a relationship that is akin to what Norway has, to find a way forward and achieve a compromise that not only meets the obligation of implementing the referendum outcome, but recognises the views of many people about the need to maintain a very close relationship with the EU?

Stephen Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for adding his name to our amendment. I agree with every word that he said. Let us not forget that a Parliament that is captured by its extremes is one that plays directly into the hands of the no-dealers, because the legal default position is that if there is no alternative, we leave without a deal. The failure to compromise has played directly into the hands of the no-dealers, who are a small minority in this House. The tail has been wagging the dog for too long. It is time for it to stop. The Committee stage of a withdrawal agreement Bill would provide ample opportunity for amendments such as a common market 2.0 type of arrangement, but that has to be debated in this House in Committee. Let us first get it over the line on Second Reading.

Luke Graham: The hon. Gentleman is proposing a compromise, which I appreciate—it is time that Members started to vote for things, rather than just against things—and he says he  wants greater detail. I served under my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington) in the Cabinet Office, and as we know there was no cross-party Front-Bench agreement on these measures. Even if we were to go forward with this compromise, he would not have his Front Benchers behind him, so how can we get behind it?

Stephen Kinnock: I was not party to the decision taken not to support the withdrawal agreement Bill, which included the 10 concessions our negotiating team did such a great job in securing, and I regret it. It is a tragedy that the House has never had the opportunity to debate or vote on the withdrawal agreement Bill. I truly hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will tonight join me and other colleagues in the Division Lobby to make it clear that it is time to vote for something, not just against things.

Jeremy Wright: As the hon. Gentleman knows from the Second Reading debate, I have a good deal of sympathy with the approach he is setting out. I appreciate, too, that he is recommending to the House that we pass amendments 6 and 7 as well as new clause 1. If I were minded to support new clause 1 but not amendments 6 and 7, would I effectively be presenting an option that everyone in the House could choose to adopt, in preference to no deal and no Brexit, and that the Government could bring forward so that there was an option for us all to pursue, but then if the Government were to themselves negotiate a separate deal, nothing in new clause 1 would prevent them from proposing that option?

Stephen Kinnock: I can confirm that we are saying in the amendments that the vote should reflect the outcome of the cross-party talks, but clearly this is not about setting that in stone. The current Prime Minister is welcome—good luck to him—to go to Brussels and try to get a deal. I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me if I am sceptical about whether serious attempts are being made to do that, but if he is able to secure changes that he feels he can bring back, clearly they would still have to be based on that 585-page document, which is the basic building block for a deal. It will not be torn up by the EU.

Kenneth Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman says, the House has never voted on the proposal that so nearly came forward. I think I would have supported it had it got that far. Does he agree that had the whole House realised then what form subsequent events would take to lead us to today and what would happen to public opinion in the ever increasingly wild debate that followed—if the vote could have been taken with that foresight—it would have been carried by a large majority in this House, that the withdrawal deal, as amended, would now be in place, and that we would now be able to have civilised and sensible debates about the long-term arrangements to be agreed during the transition period?

Stephen Kinnock: I thank the Father of the House. Like many Members, I wish that crystal balls had been handed out when we first came to this place. Unfortunately,  that was not the case. It goes back to what he said earlier—Parliament and the debate have been captured by the extremes, and we have to move on from that. We have to break the deadlock and find a sustainable way of preventing no deal, and the way to do that is to leave with a deal.

Ian Lucas: My hon. Friend and his colleagues have put forward a very interesting amendment indeed. Could he clarify what discussions he has had with the Opposition Front Benchers about the amendments and what response he has had from them?

Stephen Kinnock: I recognise my hon. Friend’s point, but at present I have not had a conversation with our Front Benchers on this topic.
My party’s Brexit spokesperson, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), made it clear in an interview on last weekend’s Marr show that Labour only withdrew from the talks due to the inability of the former Prime Minister to deliver her own party. He stated:
“We took a judgement call that some of the proposals that the Prime Minister put forward she would not be able to get through her own party”.
I think this confirms that our side was ready to compromise on a deal if the Prime Minister could have delivered her own party. The good will was clearly there. Now all the focus should be on finding a way to put that deal back on the table, to study it, to debate it, to amend it, to vote on it, and ultimately to use it as the basic vehicle for sorting out the shambolic situation we find ourselves in.

John Redwood: I appreciate the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and I agreed with his opening remark that we want this to be over with and to move on, but my worry is this. Does not his idea require guarantees and statements from the European Union? What would they be, and how could we secure them?

Stephen Kinnock: At the heart of our amendment, and of the withdrawal agreement Bill, is a document that has absolutely been signed off by the EU27. It is there; it is ready to go; it is off the shelf. The changes—the 10 concessions—relate to the political declaration on the future relationship. So the answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that the European Union would, I think, bite our arms off if we were able to come forward and say, “This is the deal. It needs some tweaks, but, in essence, this is where we need to go.” That is why I think it is so vital for us to use the extension period for a purpose.

Victoria Prentis: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way. I am sorry that there are so many questions, but it is interesting to note that when there is a sensible suggestion the House is genuinely interested in trying to establish some consensus, and in that spirit I ask a slightly cheeky question. Were one to have committed oneself to “do or die” by 31 October, is there any way in which we could get this consensus—this new idea—through the House before that date without relying on the extension?

Stephen Kinnock: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said on Second Reading, we are ready to work every hour of every day, 24/7.  The 31 January date is named in the extension document, but if we can get this done before then, and indeed before 31 October, yes—and the huge advantage is that it is on the shelf and ready to go.
We would not have to accept the withdrawal agreement Bill as it stands in its entirety. We could add amendments in Committee; we could improve it, just as with any other legislation. Those who are campaigning for a second referendum can even try again to add a confirmatory vote in Committee, if that is the way they wish to go. As I said earlier, I myself would consider trying to introduce something nearer to a common market 2.0 approach. All those options would be open to us in Committee, but we have to get the Bill over the line on Second Reading. The reality is that whatever angle we are coming from in this deeply divided and fragmented House, the withdrawal agreement Bill is the only game in town if we want to make progress.
Our second substantive proposal calls on the Government to publish a copy of the draft Bill to implement the withdrawal agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union within five working days. The draft Bill must include provisions reflecting the outcome of the inter-party talks. We know that that document exists, and we need to see it published so that we can give it the scrutiny that it requires.
For any Member who supports either a deal-based Brexit or even a second referendum, supporting our amendments is the most sensible and pragmatic approach, and the way forward. Let us get this done. Let us rediscover the lost art of compromise. Let us move our country forward, on to the issues that matter to people up and down the country.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because I suspect that he has reached his peroration, but may I ask him a simple question? Has he checked with his Front Benchers that they would support his amendment if he were to press it?

Stephen Kinnock: I understand that our position at the present time would be to abstain, but I am not 100% sure of that. I really hope that, having listened to the debate, colleagues throughout the House will consider supporting the amendment, because I think that given the amount of support that we are receiving from Members on both sides of the House, we have a real chance of getting this across the line.

Albert Owen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen Kinnock: I will give way briefly, but then I must press on.

Albert Owen: In new clause 1(2)(b), my hon. Friend talks of alignment with Northern Ireland. Is he saying that the whole United Kingdom—all four nations—would be in a single market until such time as the Europeans reached an agreement during the transition period?

Stephen Kinnock: That is correct. The commitment in the clarifications of the withdrawal agreement Bill makes it clear that that will be the case until such time as alternative arrangements are found. I will be absolutely frank: the backstop is at the heart of the withdrawal agreement Bill, but if Members really boil it down, how  many in this House are actually opposed to it? I am a big fan of the backstop because I believe the backstop protects peace in Northern Ireland. The vast majority of Conservative MPs voted for the withdrawal agreement, which has the backstop at its heart. There are a maximum of 50, or 60 maybe, Members of Parliament who are opposed to the backstop, and as a result we are in the mess we are in now; it is the definition of the cliché “the tail wagging the dog”, and it has to stop.
Let us move forward. Let us get back to the issues that people really care about on the doorstep: education, health, housing and cutting crime. Do we remember when we used to discuss those issues in politics—the vital bread-and-butter issues that really matter to our communities?
This House has been paralysed by its extremes; it is time to break the deadlock, and I hope that colleagues will join us in the Division Lobby later in that spirit.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. To help the situation for Members, nothing has been selected for votes as yet, so let’s hope that people will be happy.

Bill Cash: The question I raise in this series of amendments relates in particular, as I said in my brief speech just now, to the extent to which the United Kingdom is put under a duty—an obligation —to be subservient to the European Union. I find this Bill deeply offensive for that reason alone, and, as I said earlier, our whole parliamentary constitutional arrangement is based on the fact that we make decisions in general elections by the free will of the British people in a secret ballot. When those decisions are taken and the results come out in the respective constituencies and a majority or otherwise is arrived at to decide upon the composition of this House of Commons, that is a free Parliament based on a secret ballot and on the free choice of the British people.
I believe that we are heading for a general election, and I think that that will sort out a lot of the problems we are currently experiencing with this Bill and, indeed, in relation to the whole question of satisfying the decision taken by the British people in the referendum, and indeed by this House on frequent occasions with the referendum Act itself by six to one, the notification of withdrawal Act by 499 to 120, and then again the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Every single Conservative MP voted for that Act, which clearly stated that we would leave the European Union and repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on exit day, which is 31 October. That is categorically the law of the land, so the whole concept of our democracy, which is somehow or other being subverted by this Bill, is actually already in place; this has been decided and I see absolutely no justification whatsoever for seeking to reverse it. I also see no justification for reversing the votes that my hon. Friends have themselves already cast over and over again in favour of not only the referendum Act—it was also in the manifesto—but also the notification of withdrawal Act, and the withdrawal Act itself?
So I can see no justification for the majority in this House, because although this measure scraped through by 29 votes, we know where the votes came from. There is no doubt about it; they came from former Conservative Members of Parliament, and some who are unfortunately —I think by their own choice—in a position where they have had the Whip taken away from them.
I regret that; I saw it happen on a previous occasion with the Maastricht treaty, although it did not happen to me personally, but I can only say that if you live by the sword, you die by the sword.

Oliver Letwin: indicated assent.

Bill Cash: My right hon. Friend nods his head, because that is true, and that is how it goes.

John Redwood: But is not the fundamental unacceptable point about this piece of draft legislation the way in which it allows the EU to dictate to the United Kingdom and the Prime Minister any terms it likes and leaves us no bargaining position whatsoever?

Bill Cash: That is absolutely right, and that is why, in my short speech earlier, I said that this should be called not the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill but the European Union (Subservience) Bill. This is a subjugation, and we have experienced this. That is why I called on the previous Prime Minister to resign. We had a capitulation on 11 April; we had a flurry of points of order, then we had a statement that afternoon, at which point I asked her whether she would resign, because she had capitulated. This Bill is a mirror image of that, but in a way it is even worse, because it places a legal duty on the Prime Minister—enforceable by judicial review if it came to it—to carry out this act of political suicide. Members on the Opposition Benches really ought to reflect on the full extent and nature of the subservience, subjugation and vassalage that they are putting the United Kingdom in. It is a total and utter disgrace. It flies in the face not only of the referendum result itself but of section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which specifically states:
“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.”
Exit day is prescribed as 31 October.
I want to add another point, which is about money. Does the self-indulgence of the people who voted for this bear in mind the fact that every single month that has gone by since the end of March, when we should have come out, is costing about £1.2 billion? Every time they go in for this self-flagellation and this unbelievable determination to extend the period of time—for no purpose whatsoever, because they will never come to an agreement—it is costing the British taxpayer, the people we represent. This is a denial of the democracy that they expressed in the referendum, which we in this House specifically gave to them to decide. We did not say, “Oh, we’re giving you this right under the European Union Referendum Act 2015 to make a decision on whether we stay or leave, but actually when it comes to it, if we don’t like the outcome, we are going to turn turtle on you and reverse that decision in Parliament.” Parliament, by a sovereign Act that is still on the statute book, gave the right to the British people undeniably and deliberately to make that decision of their own account, and not ourselves.
An astonishing illustration of what I am saying is to be found in clause 3(2) of the Bill, which states:
“If the European Council decides to agree an extension of the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union ending at 11.00 pm on 31 October 2019, but to a date other than 11.00 pm on 31 January 2020, the Prime Minister must, within a period of two days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made, or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, notify the President of the European Council that the United Kingdom agrees to the proposed extension.”
This is the enforceable duty. This is the insane provision that is being imposed on us in defiance of our constitutional arrangement that decisions are taken not by individual Members of Parliament in a private Member’s Bill but by the elected Government, in line with the referendum decision. So the Prime Minister would be under an obligation within a period of two days—beginning with the end of the day on which the Council’s decision is made, or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner—to notify the President of the European Council that the United Kingdom agreed to the proposed extension. So, it is not just that we are going to be saddled with a decision on an extension to 31 January 2020 to the cost of something well over £3 billion, because if the Council agrees, we would then be under an obligation to accept whatever date it puts forward, being a date other than a period ending 11 pm on 31 January 2020. It is strange to say that I have not heard that point being explained by the proponents of this Bill. I heard the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) giving a description on Second Reading of what the Bill is about, but I did not hear him say what I have just said. I would like him to get up and deny it if what I have just read, which is in the text of the Bill, is wrong.

Hilary Benn: I did directly address that question in my speech on Second Reading, but the hon. Gentleman has not read clause 3(3), which explains the circumstances in which subsection (2), to which he has such objection, would not apply.

Bill Cash: I do not think that that is really an excuse, because the reality is that this is the decision—[Interruption.] I will read out the subsection to which the right hon. Gentleman just referred. It states that
“subsection (2) does not apply if the House of Commons has decided not to pass a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown within a period of two calendar days beginning with the end of the day on which the European Council’s decision is made or before the end of 30 October 2019, whichever is sooner, in the following form—
‘That this House has approved the extension to the period in Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union which the European Council has decided.’”
However, the likelihood of that not happening is absurd. I really do think that this is just another example of the kind of obfuscation which this Bill provides in almost every clause. In fact, it is not just obfuscation, because it drives a coach and horses through the way in which we should be and have been governed.

Iain Duncan Smith: A valuable point was raised earlier that also explains how this Bill is problematic, which is that clause 3 assumes that the EU would in some way make a conditional offer. However, the EU is in control of whether it makes any kind of offer—conditional or  not—so the Bill hinges on the EU’s ability or desire to do that, which of course probably will not happen, and it is not meant to, anyway.

Bill Cash: That is true. Indeed, we had all this back in April when, if one looks at the text of the decision and the manner in which it has taken, one can see that it was hedged with certain conditions. What is going on here is that this Bill is driving us to do something that is in complete contravention to the decision that has been taken already in section 1 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which itself implements the decision that was taken by the British people. This Bill undermines the referendum, it undermines the law of the land as expressed in section 1 of the 2018 Act, and the commencement order has already been made.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union for bringing in that commencement order, which makes things a done deal. We are now in a position whereby we have repealed the European Communities Act 1972, subject only to the fact that the law of the land says that that will have effect on 31 October. This Bill is a monstrous piece of legislation designed to turn inside out not only our constitutional arrangements, but the decision of the British people in the referendum and Government policy.
The Prime Minister established another important point in his leadership election result. He got two thirds of the parliamentary Conservative party to vote for him, and he got two thirds of the grassroots—the associations—to vote for him. If ever a Prime Minister had a mandate to make such decisions within the framework of the Conservative party, it is there, which is another reason why I take exception to the fact that this Bill is going through because a number of colleagues—I am sorry to have to say this, because it is a sad business—are flying in the face of the mandate that the Prime Minister got within the framework of the Conservative party.
There is no doubt whatsoever that, within the framework of our constitution—and I will conclude with these words—it is simply monstrous that we should be put in a position where a judicial duty is imposed on the Prime Minister to make a decision under the terms of this Bill. Frankly, I find it inconceivable that anyone could possibly vote for it.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) who, as always, is on the side of the optimists rather than the defeatists.
Listening to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), with whom I have had the pleasure of serving on the Brexit Committee, I fear he is a pessimist in this. He thinks we need a compromise, but he does not talk about the need for the European Union to compromise. He talks only about the need for the United Kingdom to compromise, in the face of a clear commitment by the British people to leave the European Union.
I will speak briefly to the amendments in my name and in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Three years ago, the people of the United Kingdom instructed us, with the largest democratic mandate in our history, to obtain a divorce from the European Union and, in March 2017, Parliament accepted that instruction by giving notice under article 50 of the EU treaty.
Article 50 makes provision for an amicable divorce or for a divorce without agreement. In a traditional divorce to dissolve a marriage, both parties accept the irretrievable breakdown and try to agree sensible future arrangements, but the EU has never accepted Brexit. The EU and its institutions do not want a divorce. If there was any doubt about that, it has been made clear to us on the Brexit Committee whenever we have visited the European institutions and their leaders that the EU is just hoping and praying that Brexit will go away and that we will remain in the European Union.
They do not want a divorce, so their motivation is to contest that divorce by putting forward unreasonable and unacceptable terms that offer us only a punishment deal. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) anticipated that in her Lancaster House speech, in which she said she feared that that might be the approach of the European Union, that it would be intent on offering us a punishment deal.
That is exactly what the EU has done, and the only alternative to a punishment deal under article 50 is no deal. Unless amended, this Bill will remove even that option, which enables us to put pressure on the European Union to come to the negotiating table to talk about a better deal.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said yesterday, this is a dreadful deal that has already been rejected by the House on several occasions. With this Bill, are we really going to be left with the options of either no Brexit or Brexit in name only? That is essentially what we are talking about tonight.
The United Kingdom’s freedom to divorce under article 50 is constrained by this Bill by being made subject to an EU veto that enables the EU to block Brexit, effectively indefinitely, unless or until the UK reneges on the decision of a referendum. The Bill removes any incentive for the EU to negotiate, which is why the Prime Minister is right. If this Bill passes tonight, we will take away from him any opportunity to negotiate. All he could do is be a supplicant at the table of the European Union. In effect, this would be an example of modern international slavery, where we are imprisoned by the EU with no reasonable way out.
Sadly, the EU’s collaborators in this House have become more strident and less cautious as time has elapsed. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has said, in public, in this House and in private, that his objection to no deal is only because of the lack of preparation—

Sylvia Hermon: rose—

Christopher Chope: I will not give way. My right hon. Friend has now dropped that pretence, telling us yesterday that this Bill will show whether or not the House of Commons accepts a policy of a no-deal exit. He is saying that if this Bill carries on into law, we will be telling the EU, “Not to worry, in no circumstances will we be leaving without a deal.” In other words, we will be throwing in the towel to the EU. Nothing in this Bill is related to the no-deal preparations or recognises that since the change of Government expenditure on no  deal has increased dramatically and that we are now in a position where we will be prepared for no deal—we should have been better prepared for it in the first place.
If the remoaners had the guts, they would have brought forward a Bill to revoke article 50, which is what they want in their hearts and what the EU wants, but they know that that would be resoundingly defeated if it were presented to this House. What we have instead is the revocation of article 50 in all but name—a device to deceive the public. This is a squalid little Bill. It is an affront to Parliament, to democracy and to the people, because it enslaves the UK to the EU. It relegates us to the status of a colony. It treats the UK as though we had been vanquished in war, by giving the EU the power to dictate the terms of our surrender. I despair at the defeatism of so many of my colleagues, and I hope that we will fight back and win in a general election, for which I cannot wait.

Jeremy Lefroy: On a point of order, Dame Eleanor. Is it in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), for whom I have great respect, to compare what we are talking about now with slavery, which, around the world, is a most terrible thing and—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I appreciate the point the hon. Gentleman is making, and indeed his dedication to fighting that particular evil, but that is a debating point, not a point of order, and we do not have time this afternoon.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am going to be brief, as I know many others want to get in, Dame Eleanor. I wish to compare a couple of these amendments and say a few words as to why this Bill is a very bad one. First, let me say to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who is, sadly, no longer in his seat, that his is a genuine attempt to find a way forward. I have just been reading it, having just looked at it, and it is intriguing. He is specific in one of his amendments, saying that the purpose of the letter to extend would be to
“include provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019”.
As I say, this is a genuine attempt being made by those who really do think that this House stands in serious danger of being perceived by the public more and more as having taken the position that nothing will satisfy it and that the only thing that it wants at the end of it all is to defy the decision taken at the time of the referendum. That is very much the opinion growing out there, and I was intrigued when the hon. Gentleman made the point that we in this place are now being perceived as a Parliament opposed to the people, not a Parliament to represent them. The people voted to leave, whether we liked it or not, and now this Parliament seems set on a course to obfuscate and delay that, with a view to overturning it eventually.
There is no question in my mind about the hon. Gentleman’s legitimate observations—we get on very well and play football together, so I am slightly in favour of him anyway—but although he said the talks were good, the problem was that at no stage did his Front-Bench colleagues conduct them in a genuine sense. The truth was that they probably never intended to  agree anything with my right hon. and hon. Friends who were in government at the time. I had a whispered exchange with the Father of the House, and he made the point that one reason for that was probably that they were under attack by the second-referendum crowd, who were absolutely opposed to any idea that the Opposition could strike any kind of agreement with the Government that would do away with the idea of a second referendum and therefore the opportunity to vote down the original referendum result. That lies at the heart of it. There is a deceit in all this. As I said earlier, I genuinely believe that the hon. Gentleman was genuine in his view, as were many of those aligned alongside him in that regard, but I do not believe that to have been true of the Labour party Front-Bench team—in fact, throughout all this they have played fast and loose.
When I come to the proposition with which the Bill is concerned, I come back to why I think it is a bad Bill. For all the talk about not wanting to have no deal and wanting to have a deal, although some of those who propose this measure voted for the previous Prime Minister’s deal, if every one of them really wanted any deal rather than no deal, they would have voted for that deal. Strangely, they found themselves voting against it at the time.

Richard Graham: My right hon. Friend is making an absolutely valid point. There is a huge amount of virtue signalling in the House from people who do not want no deal but will not vote for a deal. The amendment I have tabled would enable everyone to state clearly, on the record for their constituents, whether they will allow us all the chance to vote for a deal rather than for no deal, on Monday 21 October. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a sensible way of being absolutely straightforward about the issue?

Iain Duncan Smith: I was not going to come to my hon. Friend’s amendment, because there was a fair amount of debate, but I would link him and the hon. Member for Aberavon, in the sense that both are trying genuinely to find a way through. My hon. Friend and I are old friends, and he has made a genuine effort to propose that idea. My hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman are similar in one regard, accept that the hon. Gentleman’s proposal goes back to the final discussions that were taking place.
My problem is that in truth I just do not think enough Opposition Members really want to ensure that we leave. The truth is that the idea has grown, particularly among those on the Labour party Front Bench but also in some of the other parties, that if we delay this long enough, at some point there will be a way and the cry for a second referendum will get stronger and stronger, and then they will go to that. As we hear from the Labour party Front Benchers, their view now is that they support a second referendum, having originally said that they did not, and they now also support voting remain in that referendum, which before they said they did not, because they said at the 2017 election that they would implement the original referendum decision.

Ruth Smeeth: Many Opposition Members wish to vote for a deal. In fact, I will vote for a deal when one comes back in front of the House. The issue now is to make sure that we have the  opportunity to vote for a deal so that we can ensure that we do not crash out of the European Union, thereby damaging the economy for my constituents.

Iain Duncan Smith: I encompassed the hon. Lady in my remarks about those lined up alongside the hon. Member for Aberavon with genuine intent, who want to do something about it.
All these issues are interesting, but the problem we face is that the position of those on the Labour party Front Bench has now completely shifted. It is clear to me that they do not want an agreement of almost any sort. Any obstacle will be placed in the way and a deal will never be achieved. They think that enough delay will produce a second referendum, and of course, they want to vote remain. This Bill is a vehicle to produce a route to a second referendum. That is what this is all about.
All I can say is that I did not want my colleagues to be taken out and to lose the party Whip—I have been a bit of a rebel in the past myself—but everybody knows what they do when the Government say there is a vote of confidence. The Government set a vote of confidence on this issue because it is at the very heart and soul of where the Government currently are, which is that they want to negotiate a deal. They want to get a deal, but they do not think we will ever get a deal if we are not able to say, “Ultimately, we will leave, whatever the case, so it is over to you to show some flexibility in the arrangements.”
I simply say that I will continue to vote against the agreement notwithstanding the fact that some of my colleagues will not. I have to say that this Bill is a route to delay and that delay in turn is a route to a second referendum and that second referendum, the Opposition hope, is a way to overturn the view and belief of the British people, which would be quite undemocratic.

Andrew Percy: I have some sympathy with amendment 19 moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), and some sympathy with new clause 1 and also amendment 6, but I cannot vote for them, particularly new clause 1 and amendment 19, because people outside have figured out what is really going on here. As I said in my intervention earlier, we are in this position of not having left the European Union because there are people in here who were elected on a mandate and who stood up and said that they intended to deliver the result, but who have never had any intention of delivering our exit from the European Union. They are scared of their electorates, yes, and they now scared of their “selectorates”, but they never had any intention of delivering on the result. What they have done is play for time, exactly as suggested a moment ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). They now want to play for time again, because they want to get us to 2020. When we get to 2020, it suddenly becomes, “Well, that referendum was in 2016. It is quite hard to implement a mandate from 2016 in 2020, which is roughly the length of an average Parliament.” That is what is going on in here.
The people have figured it out. My constituents went to the polls in 2016 and voted to leave the European Union by a margin of 67% in the belief that the result would be implemented because both sides had told them that. They trotted along to the general election of 2017.  Some 93% of them voted for two political parties, which said that they were going to implement the result. They have figured it out. They believe that there are people in here who never had any intention of delivering on the result. If we have another extension and something else comes back, there will be another reason why they cannot quite bring themselves to vote for it. The particular niche thing that they select, perhaps never having mentioned it before, will suddenly be the block on why they cannot quite get themselves across the line. I am sick of it. The people are sick of it. They have figured it out. The reason why we are in this position is that, when people talk about compromise, we have had this perverse alliance—

Sandy Martin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Percy: No.
We have had this perverse alliance—

Sandy Martin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Percy: No.
We have had this perverse alliance of people who never wanted us to leave the European Union—remainers—voting with the minority of people on the Conservative Benches who actively want us to have a no-deal Brexit. They have trotted through the Lobby together, while people like me who came into this House in 2010 are absolutely determined to get us out of the European Union. We have done exactly what was asked of us and what is being demanded of us now. We have compromised. We have looked at that withdrawal agreement and said, “You know what, it is not perfect, but I respect the promise that I made to my constituents.” I respect the minority of my constituents who also voted remain and therefore expect me to represent them as well, which is why I have compromised and voted for that deal on three occasions. I have voted for a Norway option and an European Free Trade Association option on four other occasions, and the same people who lecture us repeatedly about how we need to compromise to get us across the line are the very same people—not all of them, but many of them—who trotted through the Lobby to kill that deal on three occasions and to kill the indicative votes on those four occasions.
I have to ask this question: when did it become the case that people who campaigned for remain could tell people who voted leave what it is that they voted for? When did it become acceptable for them to say, “No, no, no! These leave voters, whom I do not fully understand because I was on the wrong side of the debate and on the wrong side of my constituents, did not vote for no deal.”
Last night, I received an email from a constituent called Kirsty. She posted this question to me. She said, “Why do these people who got the referendum result wrong, were on the wrong side, get to say why I voted?” She said, “I know why I voted leave and I am prepared to have a no deal.” She signed off as Kirsty, under 40, not a racist and quite well educated. All we have heard throughout is that if someone wants a no-deal outcome then obviously they are just a stupid, thick, racist northerner. People have seen this, and we are sick of it. I will not support any amendment that allows a further extension,  because my constituents and I know what is going on here. Those colleagues are playing it long, playing for time and saying that they respect the result when they have no intention of doing so. They did not respect the result in March or April of this year, and they are not going to on 31 October. You can sure as damn tell it, Dame Eleanor, they ain’t going to on 31 January either.

John Redwood: I would like us to leave on 31 October, as agreed, with a free trade agreement, or with serious talks about a free trade agreement, so that new tariffs or barriers need not be imposed on our trade with the EU or its trade with us. I am quite sure that we have a chance of achieving that only if so-called no deal is left firmly on the table, and if the European Union knows that we will leave with no withdrawal agreement or free trade agreement if it does not agree to those talks or offer such an agreement. That is our only lever.
I came to this debate against the Bill, because I think it tries to take away our only or best negotiating lever. I have looked carefully at amendment 6, new clause 1 and amendment 19, and I have listened to the debate on them. I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) have very good intentions. I am sure that they are desperately trying to find compromise and a way forward at a time when the country is divided, as it was during the referendum campaign, and when this House remains extremely divided, or fragmented, into a series of different factions with different views on the best outcome.
Having listened to the debate, I share the view of my hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). The amendments are on the side of thwarting the referendum result. They are designed to undermine Britain’s main negotiating card, which is our right to leave without having to make any more payments, accept any more laws or accept any instructions on our borders. The three things that the leave voters I met in large numbers during the referendum campaign wanted were to take control of our money, our borders and our laws. We have the right to do that on 31 October.

Patrick Grady: Take control of our laws!

John Redwood: Yes, take control of our laws. [Laughter.] That is what we are arguing about today. I am explaining the extreme irony that this Parliament, which claims to believe in democracy, is deliberately trying to thwart our democracy by denying the result of the democratic decision that was made by the people, and that we said was theirs to make; and that this Parliament is trying to overturn the promises that many candidates—on the Labour side, in particular—made in the general election of 2017, and that they seem to have forgotten now that they are Members of Parliament.

Bill Cash: I noticed the laughter from the Scots Nats at what my right hon. Friend said. In view of the very good sense that he was speaking, I invite the House to consider this. Is it not the case that under the withdrawal agreement, during the transition period,  decisions will be taken by the Council of Ministers to impose obligations and laws on the United Kingdom without our even being there, without any transcript, without any Hansard and almost invariably by consensus? Is not the whole thing a massive racket, the object of which is to put us in a state of subjugation—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Sir William, thank you, but we are running out of time.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, which goes to the heart of the crucial issue about our democracy that the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) raised from a sedentary position. One of the features that many of us found most objectionable about the withdrawal agreement was precisely that for a long and unspecified transition period that could have stretched on for many months—it was not clear what would end it—we would be under any new law that the European Union wished to impose on us, with no vote, voice or ability to influence that law.
At the moment, as a full member, we have some influence. We have a vote, and sometimes we manage to water down or delay something, but in the transition period we would have none of those rights. Any of the existing massive panoply of European law could be amended or changed by decisions of the European Court of Justice, and that would be binding on the United Kingdom. This is completely unacceptable for a democratic country—that, when a majority of people in a democratic referendum voted to take back control of their laws, their Parliament then says, “No; far too difficult a job for us. We don’t want to participate in this process. We don’t want to take control of your laws. We want to delegate most of them, in many fields, to the European Union and have a foreign court developing our law for us in ways that we might find completely objectionable.” None of the amendments that I have just been mentioning, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and others, intending to find a compromise, tackles this fundamental obstacle to the withdrawal agreement and to the idea that we can somehow negotiate our way out of the European Union if it does not think we just intend to leave.

Sylvia Hermon: I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention. May I take him back to something that he said, because it is really very important? The right hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues have claimed—in the referendum, subsequently and tonight—that they are going to take back control of the borders. May I just ask him how he intends to take back control of South Armagh, and would he like to come to Crossmaglen and explain why it is all right for us to go out without a deal?

Eleanor Laing: Order. We are running out of time, and it would not be a proper debate if we did not hear from those on the Front Benches. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that and bring his speech to a conclusion very quickly.

John Redwood: Well, of course, if we just leave, we take back control of our borders. We can then decide whether we wish to do anything about it. We may wish to leave in place exactly all the existing arrangements. I am not making any recommendations that would embarrass the hon. Lady or her friends in Northern Ireland. We are very sensitive about that border. Indeed, the British Government have made it very clear that they see no reason to impose new barriers or difficulties on our side of the Northern Ireland-Republic of Ireland border at all. I am sure that will be very welcome to all those in this House who are seriously worried about this issue. It makes one wonder why the backstop was ever invented or necessary. Why is it so difficult for the European Union just to strip it out given that the EU has a sincere promise—agreed, I think, by all parts of this House—that we do not wish to impose new barriers on that border in a way that could be an obstacle to good relations and the peace process?

Craig Mackinlay: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has ever had the experience of having builders in and not having given them an end date. What happens? The building work goes on and on and on. Is it not time that we told the builders, “The end date is 31 October. You finish the job—no ifs, no buts, no compromise”?

Eleanor Laing: We all know that it is great for emphasis to repeat things, but we are running out of time.

John Redwood: I will accept your guidance, Dame Eleanor.
In conclusion, these amendments do not fix the Bill. This Bill is extremely damaging to our democracy, undermines our negotiating position and would therefore achieve the opposite of what many of its proposers say they are trying to achieve.

Stephen Gethins: One thing that this Bill has done today is to show the progress that can be made when Members of Parliament work together and overcome our political divides. Something that is also clear is that nobody seems to be arguing that leaving the European Union is a good idea.
I am not sure how to follow the last contributions, or how to talk about issues such as democracy when we have a Government who want to ignore laws that get passed by this place, who already ignore motions on crucial issues such as pensions fairness for the WASPI women and who want to stuff the unelected House of Lords full of pro-Brexit peers. The idea that that is somehow democratic and bringing back control defies belief.
Worst of all is the prospect of a no-deal Brexit for which there is no mandate—no one voted for it. In fact, the Prime Minister told us that it would be the easiest deal in the world and there would be no chance that this would ever happen.
Many Members on the Government Benches understand that, and I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who made a fine contribution earlier today and who was a fine Minister, but for whom there is no space left in the Conservative party. But the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) told us everything we needed  to know. When he talked of a mandate, he talked in terms of a Conservative party leadership election in which 0.1% of the population, if that, could vote. That is not a mandate; that is not democracy. Let me say to such Members—I have tried to say it gentle terms but I will do so in the strongest terms possible—that given the harm caused to everybody by the Government’s no deal, Brexit is bigger than the Conservative party, and bigger than every single party in this place. When Members think about this tonight, they would do well to remember that.
Members such as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), among others, have had good intentions in what they try to do, but this is a Government who have no idea what they are doing, and we must—must—take no deal off the table. I thank the Members who have backed our Bill tonight for their contributions. We will not be backing any amendments because we need to get this Bill through and take no deal off the table.

Paul Blomfield: I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate, because it has been largely thoughtful and reasoned, both in Committee and on Second Reading. It has been the sort of debate that we could usefully have had more often over the past couple of years. I recognise that the amendments, particularly those tabled by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), are put forward with good intentions and to seek to assist the process. However, our view on all the amendments is determined by the objective of the Bill itself, as was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) on Second Reading.
The Bill has one clear purpose, which is to prevent a disastrous no-deal Brexit on 31 October. An extraordinary coalition has been brought together over the past few weeks to put the Bill forward in the spirit of consensus. We know that no deal would be a disaster for jobs, for the NHS, for policing and for security. The Government’s own papers from Operation Yellowhammer made that clear.
In addition, there is real anxiety about the lives of EU citizens in the UK and those who are too often forgotten, UK citizens in the EU, being thrown into uncertainty and potential legal jeopardy. Of course, as many have pointed out, no deal would not be the end of Brexit, quite the opposite: it would be the beginning of years of long negotiation over our future relationship in which we would start from a significantly disadvantaged position.
When we make the arguments against no deal, we are speaking not only on behalf of the coalition in this House but for many beyond. The CBI has called no deal
“a tripwire into economic chaos”.
The TUC has said it would be “a disaster” for working people. This is our last chance to avoid no deal. The House has voted against it three times, but we need this legislation because the Prime Minister and his Government cannot be trusted to enact the will of the House without it. Parliament is sitting today only because of the amendments to the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 tabled by the right hon. and learned  Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). The Prime Minister made it clear that he saw this September sitting period as a nuisance, saying that the
“whole September session…is a rigmarole”.
The Prime Minister has told the House that he is pursuing a deal with the EU, but he has equally told the House that nothing has been proposed to it, and the EU has, in effect, confirmed that. We heard the devastating critique from the former Chancellor earlier today. European officials have told the press:
“There was literally nothing on the table, not even a sketch of what the solution could look like.”
The Prime Minister’s closest adviser has apparently called the talks “a sham”—he got that right, at least. The Government’s current working alternative to the backstop is simply taking the backstop out. Nothing new is being proposed. But if, by some miracle, there is some deal negotiated with the EU, then the Prime Minister can bring it back to the House for us to vote on; that is incorporated in the Bill. Let me turn to the amendments to the Bill.

Stephanie Peacock: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no mandate in this place for no deal, just as there is no mandate for remain? In that spirit, will he and those on the shadow Front Bench support our compromise amendment, which looks to bring Members across the House forward to get a compromise deal and get the House and the country out of this crisis?

Paul Blomfield: My hon. Friend pre-empts the point that I was about to make, as I was coming on to talk about the amendments. She is right to say that there is no mandate for no deal. All those who campaigned so vigorously for leaving the European Union in 2016 made it absolutely clear that they were doing so with the intention of securing a deal—a better deal, and a deal that would be available in months. The voters who cast their ballots back in 2016 were given the clear impression that that would involve a relationship described by the current deputy Prime Minister—if that is still the description that goes with his Cabinet Office post—as broadly similar to what we have at the moment. There is no mandate for no deal. Clearly, people voted to leave, but by a painfully—

Ian Austin: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Blomfield: I will.

Ian Austin: Like me, my hon. Friend stood on a manifesto that promised to respect the referendum and to implement the outcome of that referendum, yet it is absolutely clear that what those on the Labour Front Bench have done during this process is frustrate the entire exercise, create as much chaos as possible and prevent any prospect of a deal being implemented. If he wants people to believe that he is in favour of a deal, can he update the Committee on what work those on the Labour Front Bench are doing to put forward constructive proposals to uphold the mandate he was given at the last election, which was to find a way of leaving the EU?

Paul Blomfield: I am happy to do that. We stood at the last election on a commitment to respect the result of the referendum but to rip up the negotiating mandate that the Tory Government had, which we felt failed the British people. I said from this Dispatch Box on 4 December 2018, when winding up the debate that the Prime Minister opened on the withdrawal deal, that if only she had seized the opportunity to be straight with the British people that they had voted to leave but by a painfully close margin and that the mandate was that we would no longer be members of the European Union but that we could retain a close relationship—in a customs union, aligned with the single market and part of the agencies and partnerships that we had built together—then we could have secured a deal. We entered into the cross-party talks in that spirit.

Iain Duncan Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Paul Blomfield: I am conscious of the need to give the Secretary of State time to speak and the Chair’s beady eye, so I will not. I have taken a number of interventions. I will finish the point, which relates to the last intervention.
The point about the cross-party talks was that we entered into them in good spirit and with clear proposals. The Prime Minister refused to budge on her red lines, and those talks broke down. I listened carefully to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, and I listened carefully to him on the radio this morning. The difficulty with the amendment he has tabled is not his intention, but some of the practicalities of it, because he is proposing an amendment for something that does not really exist—a withdrawal agreement plus points to which the Government did not agree.

Stephen Kinnock: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Blomfield: Briefly, on that point.

Stephen Kinnock: I accept that we do not have an officially published withdrawal agreement Bill, but we do have a clear commitment from the Government based on the cross-party talks, which would be easily encapsulated in a Bill that was ready to be put forward to Parliament—I know, because the former Chief Whip showed it to me.

Paul Blomfield: I think my hon. Friend is talking about the Theresa May Government, which is a very different proposition from the one we face at the moment. We were not at that stage of agreement. If there had been the basis for an agreement, we would have seized that opportunity in the talks. Although I have sympathy with what he says, and those proposals could be part of the discussions that we need to have in the extended period that we will secure when this Bill is passed, as will the proposals that other Members across the Committee have made, we need the space to have those discussions, and we can only achieve that space by voting for the Bill.
This Bill has successfully brought Members across the House together around a single, clearly focused objective. We are united behind the need to avoid a no-deal Brexit. We need to keep our focus very narrowly on that when we vote and ensure that we achieve that  objective because we know—a clear majority know; a growing majority within this House know—that if we allow ourselves to stumble into a no-deal Brexit, it will be a disaster for the country.

Stephen Barclay: The principle of this Bill in seeking an extension is wrong. The Government opposed it on Second Reading and we will oppose it on Third Reading. Indeed, it is so flawed that we have not bothered to table amendments to it; we oppose it in all forms.
This Bill cannot be improved because it goes against the democratic wish of the British people, the vote of 17.4 million of our citizens and the strong desire of many up and down this land who want certainty and clarity and who want Brexit done so that we can get on to the wider domestic agenda, as set out by the Chancellor in the spending review earlier today: 20,000 more police officers, with recruitment starting in Yorkshire tomorrow; a record increase of £6,000 on starting salaries for teachers; levelling up opportunity for those who warrant it; and supporting the economy through the tough decisions we took in 2010, which allows the record investment in our NHS, with 20 new hospital upgrades.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke with sincerity and I do not question the spirit in which he brings new clause 1 to the Committee this evening, but he also spoke of compromise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) correctly identified, the reality is that the hon. Member for Aberavon voted against the deal all three times—all three times.

Stephen Kinnock: Not the deal in the amendments.

Stephen Barclay: Now the hon. Gentleman says that he would vote for the deal as in the amendments. However, as he also said, the withdrawal agreement is unchanged. The vote on the third meaningful vote was not on the political declaration, which his new clause 1 speaks to. His vote in the third meaningful vote was against the withdrawal agreement alone; the extension was granted to 12 April and then 31 October. That would not have necessitated participation in the European parliamentary elections. I respect the spirit in which he brings new clause 1 to the Committee, but he seeks compromise on a withdrawal agreement text that he himself has voted against.

Luke Graham: My right hon. Friend will have greater knowledge of this than many in the House, so will he confirm that the cross-party talks were not actually able to agree a compromise? Furthermore, the Government did go out of their way to make assurances on workers’ rights, environmental standards and domestic legislation that the Labour party demanded and subsequently rowed back on when it came to passing a vote, agreeing a deal and moving this country and this House forward.

Caroline Flint: rose—

Stephen Barclay: I will come to the right hon. Lady in a moment, but I will just address my hon. Friend’s intervention. It is the case that the talks with the official Opposition were done in good faith on both sides. There were areas of genuine misunderstanding, such as  about the appetite of the Government through the political declaration to participate, for example, in EU agencies. Perhaps at the start of the talks there was some genuine misunderstanding about that. However, as I set out at the start of those talks, if the purpose of those talks was to seek a second referendum, one only needed to look at the Kyle-Wilson amendment to see that the talks were not necessary. If we look at the way the talks collapsed, it was on the basis that the position of my shadow and opposite number—he is someone of great integrity, and I respect his position—is one of seeking a second referendum. If that was genuinely the crux of his concern, surely that was self-evident at the start of those talks, and it was not necessary for those talks to progress in order to tease out that point.

Caroline Flint: Of course, I have voted for a deal a number of times. I say, with the greatest respect, we have to move on from talking about who did what and when, and we have to look forward. Many of my colleagues regret not voting for a deal and they are dealing with that right now. From the Back Benches, we are trying—maybe those on both Front Benches could listen to this—to identify and agree that there is much in the withdrawal agreement Bill where there is consensus across the House. It is not the only deal, and our amendment asks Members to reflect and build on it, but, for goodness’ sake, we have to move on. There is an increasingly loud voice across the House wanting a consensus to move forward.

Stephen Barclay: I agree with the right hon. Lady in substance and form. She is right about the requirement for us to move forward and not to look back. In fact, I made a similar point to the Irish Government about how we can move forward constructively, rather than look back at some of the talks to date. She is also right that there is much in the withdrawal agreement on which we can move forward.
That is reflected, if one looks at—[Interruption.]. I am trying to address the right hon. Lady’s point. There is much in the letter to President Tusk where the Prime Minister has narrowed down the issues in the withdrawal agreement. Many of my colleagues are concerned about lots of different aspects of the withdrawal agreement, whether on money, the European Court of Justice or geographical indicators, and the Prime Minister has narrowed those issues down. However, it is the case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole reflected, that some of us have sought compromise and will continue to do so.

Iain Duncan Smith: This is not really about the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) and the others, who genuinely, I think, do want to do something. The truth is, it is about the Labour party’s Front-Bench team, which is on a wrecking process. This is all about how to wreck the process of Brexit, have a second referendum—hopefully when everyone is so tired out that they will vote against it—and then overturn the referendum. If they have a genuine view, they should vote with us tonight to wreck this Bill.

Stephen Barclay: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Prime Minister has been crystal clear in setting an objective of 31 October. In being clear and in  turbocharging—through the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—our preparation for a no-deal outcome we do not seek, we have seen movement, as I touched on in my remarks on Second Reading, from a starting point where not a word of the withdrawal agreement could be changed, to one in which creative and flexible solutions can be explored. Indeed, the Prime Minister’s Europe adviser is in Brussels today making progress on that, yet his work is dismissed by some, because of media reports, as not being of the substance that I know it to be.

John Redwood: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the possibility of us leaving without signing a withdrawal agreement is our main pressure point on the European Union and that without that there is no reason it should give ground?

Stephen Barclay: My right hon. Friend is correct that the European Union, like the United Kingdom, wants a deal, and it is worth reminding the House why that is the case. While its position on money, citizen’s rights and the Northern Ireland border has been unified, the impact of a no-deal outcome is asymmetric across the EU, particularly on issues such as fishing and geographical indicators that are not protected. It is worth reminding the House that there are over 3,000 European geographical indicators, but just 88 UK GIs, so when we hear that the EU is fully prepared for no deal—that my counterpart, Michel Barnier, says it is fully ready for no deal—there is a difference between legislation or regulations it may want to put in place and the reality of operational readiness, which is much more varied between member states.
This Bill is about delay. It is about legislative purgatory. It is about disguising the true intent—not of all colleagues, because there are some who have voted for a deal three times—of many who voted against a deal not once, not twice, but three times, yet then say that they are against no deal, as well. This is a Bill that is designed to stop Brexit and comes at a cost of £1 billion a month—£1 billion that we want to see invested in our frontline in the way the Chancellor set out. This is a Bill that is flawed. I urge colleagues across the House to oppose it on Third Reading.
The Chair put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Order, 3 September), That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 65, Noes 495.
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment made: 6, in clause1,page2,line14,at end, insert
“in order to debate and pass a Bill to implement the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including provisions reflecting the outcome of inter-party talks as announced by the Prime Minister on 21 May 2019, and in particular the need for the United Kingdom to secure changes to the political declaration to reflect the outcome of those inter-party talks.”—(Stephen Kinnock.)
This amendment would set out as the purpose of seeking an extension under Article 50(3) TEU the passage of a Withdrawal Agreement Bill based on the outcome of the inter-party talks which concluded in May 2019 – see NC1 for contents of the Bill and Amendment XX for text of the request letter to the European Council.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
The Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Question put forthwith (Order, 3 September), That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 299.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

Hilary Benn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has spoken this evening. I say to the Prime Minister that, if the other place passes the Bill, this House expects him to uphold the law and to fulfil the obligations that will be placed upon him by this Bill and prevent this country from leaving the European Union on 31 October without a deal.
May I thank the Clerks for their assistance, and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and others for their great help? I also join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) in most warmly applauding the bravery and the courage of many on the Government Benches who have stood by their convictions in the national interest.

Stephen Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the House has now approved the Bill as amended, may I press the Government as rapidly as possible to publish the withdrawal agreement Bill, which really does require proper and robust discussion in this place?

John Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has made his own point in his own way, and it is on the record, and we are indebted to him.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to an early parliamentary general election.—(Jeremy Quin.)

Early Parliamentary General Election

Boris Johnson: I beg to move,
That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.
The House of Commons has passed a Bill devised by the Leader of the Opposition, who, I see, is not in his place. He is characteristically evasive, if not frit. It is a Bill that effectively ends the negotiations; a Bill that demands an extension at least until next year, and perhaps for many more years to come; and a Bill that insists that Britain acquiesces to the demands of Brussels and hands control to our partners. It is a Bill designed to overturn the biggest democratic vote in our history, the 2016 referendum. It is therefore a Bill without precedent in the history of this House, seeking as it does to force the Prime Minister, with a pre-drafted letter, to surrender in international negotiations. I refuse to do this. It is clear that there is therefore only one way forward for the country. The House has voted repeatedly to leave the EU, yet it has also voted repeatedly to delay actually leaving. It has voted for negotiations, and today, I am afraid, it has voted to stop—to scupper—any serious negotiations.
What this Bill means is that Parliament, or the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who is still not in his place—[Interruption.] I really do not know where he is. He refuses to give battle, or at least to engage in argument tonight. Perhaps that is a sign of how he intends to pursue things in the weeks ahead. [Interruption.] I am glad that he has now favoured the House with his presence. His Bill, among its other functions, will take away the right of this country to decide how long it must remain in the EU and hand that power to the EU. That is what it does, and I am afraid that it is time for this country to decide whether that is right.
The country must now decide whether the Leader of the Opposition or I go to those negotiations in Brussels on 17 October to sort this out. Everybody knows that if the right hon. Gentleman were the Prime Minister, he would beg for an extension and accept whatever Brussels demanded. We would then have years more dither and delay, yet more arguments over Brexit and no resolution to the uncertainty that currently bedevils this country and our economy. Everyone knows, by contrast, that if I am Prime Minister, I will go to Brussels and I will try to get a deal. Believe me, I know that I can get a deal. If they will not do a deal—I think it would be eminently sensible for them to do so, and I believe that they will—then, under any circumstances, this country will leave the EU on 31 October.
It is completely impossible for Government to function if the House of Commons refuses to pass anything that the Government propose. In my view, and in the view of this Government, there must be an election on Tuesday 15 October—I invite the Leader of the Opposition to respond—to decide which of us which goes as Prime Minister to that crucial Council on Thursday 17 October. I think it is very sad that MPs have voted like this—[Interruption.] I do; I think it is a great dereliction of their democratic duty. But if I am still Prime Minister after Tuesday 15 October, we will leave on 31 October with, I hope, a much better deal.
The Leader of the Opposition now has a question to answer. He has demanded an election for two years while blocking Brexit. He said only two days ago that he would support an election. Parliament having passed a Bill that destroys the ability of Government to negotiate, is he now going to say that the public cannot be allowed an election to decide which of us sorts out this mess? I do not want an election, the public do not want an election and the country does not want an election, but this House has left no option other than letting the public decide who they want as Prime Minister. I commend this motion to the House.

Jeremy Corbyn: This is the second time I have replied to a Conservative Prime Minister who has sought to dissolve Parliament and call an election because they did not have a deliverable Brexit policy. Although I am not condemning the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) by comparing her to her successor, she at least made detailed speeches setting out her Brexit policy—even if we fundamentally disagreed with them. This Prime Minister claims he has a strategy, but he cannot tell us what it is. The bigger problem for him is that he has not told the EU what it is either.
At Prime Minister’s Question Time today, as in the statement yesterday, the Prime Minister was unable even to say whether he has made any proposals whatsoever to the EU. Basically, the policy is cloaked in mystery because, like the emperor’s new clothes, there really is absolutely nothing there. The naked truth is that the reality is deeply unpalatable: a disastrous no-deal Brexit to take us into the arms of a trade deal with Donald Trump that would put America first and Britain a distant second.
The Prime Minister knows there is no mandate for no deal, no majority support for it in the country and no majority for it in this House. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the co-convenor of the Vote Leave campaign—said in March this year that
“we didn’t vote to leave without a deal.”
Even the leaders of the leave campaign are absolutely clear that the referendum conferred no mandate for no deal. No deal is opposed by every business group, every industry body and every trade union—and by this House, as today’s vote and others have shown.
We want an election because we look forward to turfing this Government out.

Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Leader of the Opposition want a general election? A yes or no will suffice.

Jeremy Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear what I just said. Before he gently interrupted me, I was about to point out that the offer of the election today is a bit like the offer of an apple to Snow White from the Wicked Queen, because what the Prime Minister is offering is not an apple or even an election, but the poison of a no deal. I repeat what I said last night. Let this Bill pass and gain Royal Assent, and then we will back an election—so we do not crash out of the European Union with a no-deal exit.
It is the anti-democratic instincts of this Government that cause us concern. Despite the expressed will of the House to support the Bill debated today, the Conservative peers—the Government’s colleagues in the Lords—have tabled 92 amendments for debate. I really doubt that this is motivated by a desire to improve the legislation; not a bit of it. Instead, it is motivated by a desire to filibuster the Bill—an undemocratic cabal in Downing Street, aligned with an undemocratic and unelected House to override the democratic will of this House expressed in the Bill to which we have just given a Third Reading. If the Government cannot win the argument, they try to shut down debate.
We had the Prime Minister deciding to prorogue Parliament in August, and today he wants to dissolve Parliament to shut down scrutiny. He cannot handle dissent and debate in his own party, and has extraordinarily expelled 21 of his own MPs who voted against him last night. The hypocrisy of this process is phenomenal, from a Prime Minister who twice voted against the former Prime Minister’s Brexit plans.
A general election is not a plaything for a Prime Minister to avoid his obligations, to dodge scrutiny or to renege on commitments. He has committed to renegotiate Brexit, but where is the plan and where are the proposals? If he has a Brexit plan, be it no deal or the new mystery proposal deal of which we have yet to see any information, he should put it before the public in a public vote—a referendum or a general election—and seek a mandate from them. Let the Prime Minister go to Brussels tomorrow and ask for an extension so that he can seek a mandate for his unknown Brexit plan and put it before the people.
The truth is that this motion from the Prime Minister is about playing a disingenuous game that is unworthy of his office. I look forward to the day when his Government and his party, with all the austerity and misery they have heaped on this country, are turfed out of office, and when we prevent this country from crashing out on 31 October, with all the damage—he knows, because he has already seen the documents—that it will do to people’s lives and job prospects in this country. It is a cynical move from a cynical Prime Minister.

Kenneth Clarke: I do not know whether the House wants a debate, so I will be very brief. I was going to join in if other people were going to debate. Thank you for encouraging me, Mr Speaker—no doubt to the deep distress of everybody else waiting to have an important vote.
I merely say that I have found these exchanges quite predictable; they had been well rehearsed before they took place today. With the greatest respect, I do think that the Prime Minister has a tremendous skill in keeping a straight face while he is being so disingenuous. The fact is that he is now desperate to have a general election in order to bring this House’s proceedings to an end, and to have the election, clearly, before 31 October. He is obviously going to campaign before that on the basis that he has been thwarted in getting an amazing, beneficial deal for this country that is being blocked by wicked continental politicians and by MPs in the House of Commons who have no sense of the true national interest, which is to keep him in power.
It is wrong to say that those opposed to the Prime Minister are trying to reverse the referendum. A very large percentage of those who have been defeating him in the past two days are prepared to vote for Brexit. They voted for Brexit more often than he has. He caused delay in March and he caused delay in April when we wished to proceed on satisfactory, reasonable terms. We now have a Bill that is the beginning of a pathway to giving us more time for grown-up, sensible, diplomatic exchanges between each other.
The idea that those in the European Union are refusing us a deal because they think that they are going to trap us in it permanently is nonsense. They are desperate to get a deal—of course they are—but not so desperate that they are going to accept terms that will cause chaos in Northern Ireland, politically and economically, and will shatter the normal rules that hold together the single market and the customs union upon which they are based. The Prime Minister has thrown down dramatic conditions that he must know make any sensible negotiations pointless unless he changes his direction. He is now Prime Minister. He is now a responsible politician with huge responsibility. I urge him one last time to stop treating all this as a game and to use the time available to get a serious resolution of these impossible problems to look after the future good will of this country, to keep us in a proper—no doubt different—relationship with our partners on the continent, and, in particular, to keep our economic and trading relationships intact, because they are essential for the future of our children and grandchildren.

Ian Blackford: May I congratulate with all my heart the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who has spoken with great sense, as he has done on many occasions when I have followed him? I will give you a piece of friendly advice, Prime Minister: sack your adviser Dominic Cummings and bring in the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, who might actually be able to give you some sensible advice.
We are having this debate tonight quite simply because the Prime Minister has been defeated. That is the reality. I say to the Prime Minister: as this House is supposed to be sovereign in your eyes, accept the will of this House, accept the Bill that Parliament has passed, accept your duty as Prime Minister, and go to the European Council on 17 October to negotiate the extension that you have now been told to deliver.
Yet again, this Government have been defeated by a majority in the House of Commons against a no-deal Brexit. The passage tonight of the Bill to block no deal is a victory not just for democracy but, yes, for common sense. I pay tribute to the Members of Parliament across these Benches who have worked tirelessly to build consensus for this legislation to pass and remove the cliff-edge catastrophe. The Prime Minister should not be talking about surrender—he should be congratulating Members of Parliament who have stood up for all our national interests. What a disgrace for a Prime Minister to accuse parliamentarians—decent parliamentarians—of surrender. It simply lacks dignity.
Now that Parliament has once again displayed its will, the Prime Minister must show respect for democracy and agree to abide by the will of Parliament and the Bill  blocking no deal. [Interruption.] If the Prime Minister wishes to intervene rather than shout at me, I will give him the courtesy that he did not afford me.

Iain Duncan Smith: I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman with great care, but the one thing he does not say in all this is that the reason he has voted for the Bill tonight is that he and his party are adamantly opposed to ever delivering Brexit. Will he now admit that that is his purpose and the purpose of the Bill?

Ian Blackford: My heavens! I think it is quite clear, if anyone reads the Bill, what it is about—it is about removing the cliff edge of 31 October. We in the SNP have worked with colleagues right around the House in a spirit of consensus, but yes, of course I wish to stop Brexit and Scotland being dragged out. We will work collectively with everybody here, but my colleagues and I have a responsibility to stop this Government dragging Scotland out of Europe against its will. My message to the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman is this: will you respect democracy in Scotland, and will you respect the fact that Scotland has voted to remain in the European Union?
It is the SNP’s top priority to avoid no deal. We know the devastation that a no-deal Brexit would bring to people in Scotland and across these islands. That is why we have been working hard for the past two years to avoid no deal. SNP MPs have voted consistently against no deal. We supported the Letwin-Cooper process in March to avoid no deal, and we are now doing the same with the Benn Bill.

Christine Jardine: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s confirmation tonight that he will, along with my party and the Labour party, vote against the Government. If the Government continue to pursue this reckless no-deal policy, will he continue to work with us to block any attempt to take us off the cliff edge against the will of Parliament?

Ian Blackford: The simple answer is yes. I commit myself to working with all others, because we have a responsibility to our constituents to stop the disaster of no deal. Indeed, I have been working with leaders of other parties to ensure that the Benn Bill passes tonight. We have come together to ensure that protecting the lives of people across the United Kingdom and their livelihoods is the absolute priority of this Parliament, and it is important that we keep working together.
No one voted for a no-deal Brexit. It was not on the ballot paper, and the Prime Minister needs to wake up to that reality—perhaps, Prime Minister, you might start listening to the debate, rather than chatting to the Chancellor, if you don’t mind. It is important that no tricks are deployed to avert the course of democracy over the coming days. [Interruption.] Government Members can try to shout us down. They tried last night, and it will not work. The unelected House of Lords should not under any circumstances seek to damage or kill the protections in this legislation, and the Prime Minister should quit game-playing stunts. The SNP will not fall for them.
The Scottish National party is ready for an election. We stand ready to bring down the Tory Government and give Scotland a chance to stop Brexit and decide its own future. We signal our intent to work with all across this House to stop a no-deal Brexit. It is in all our interests to do so. We will do our duty to protect all of us from a no-deal Brexit, but at the same time, this House should respect the sovereignty of the Scottish people and our right to be able to determine our own future.

Pete Wishart: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend noted last night the lack of enthusiasm from Scottish Conservatives for an early general election. That might have something to do with the fact that they are now at 20% in the polls and due to be decimated. If they vote for this tonight, would they not be turkeys voting for Christmas? If Ruth Davidson cannot stomach the Prime Minister, why should Scotland?

Ian Blackford: My hon. Friend is quite right. I look forward to SNP challengers standing in the Scottish Tory seats. We will take the fight to those constituents over the coming weeks and make sure that those constituents have the opportunity to return those seats to the Scottish National party.
Much of this debate has been about democracy. It is about the abuse of power by a Government seeking to shut down Parliament. This House must respect the Scottish Parliament, and in particular the mandate the Scottish Government have for a referendum on independence. It should be Scotland’s right to choose its own future, not the right of this Prime Minister or any other in Westminster to tell Scotland that our votes do not matter and that we cannot determine when Scotland votes in an independence referendum.
An election is coming, and I invite Scotland to send a message to Westminster: it is Scotland’s right to choose. The Times poll today shows that the SNP is set to win a majority of Westminster seats in any election. Make no mistake: we relish an election because we want to stop Brexit for good, stop the Tories and stop this Prime Minister; and, most importantly, we want to give the people a say—their choice to decide their own future. However, we will not be a party to the Prime Minister’s games and allow the Prime Minister to use an election to force a no-deal Brexit through the back door.
Simply put, the SNP cannot support this motion tonight because we do not trust the Prime Minister, and who could blame us? With his tall tales, his contempt for democracy and his Government’s broken promises to the people of Scotland, we cannot trust that he will allow this Bill to pass and remove the cliff edge before an election. I urge other opposition parties tonight to not give the Prime Minister the opportunity to bring in a no deal through the back door. We cannot allow a Government who have lost their majority, who do not command the House and who have treated this Parliament and this country with contempt to remain in office for one more day longer than is necessary.
The Prime Minister is going to shut this Parliament down so that he can spend four weeks running down the clock. We could instead use that time to run him out of office. Once a no deal has been blocked, MPs on the Opposition Benches should come together to bring  down this Government—not on the Prime Minister’s terms, but on the right terms. Time is of the essence over the next few days in order to remove the cliff edge, and to remove this shambolic, irresponsible, incompetent Tory Government from office.

Craig Mackinlay: I think that I have an apology to make, and that is to Brenda from Bristol. On a personal basis, I think I have only just got over the 2015 election. However, we need to ask ourselves: what can this Parliament now achieve? Can it deliver the bold new agenda that a new Prime Minister wishes to put in place for this country? Would this Parliament even approve a bold and ambitious Queen’s Speech to put into statute in the future? Would it approve a Queen’s Speech to put 20,000 new police on the streets and to strengthen our criminal justice system? The answer must be no, or at least rather doubtful. There could be an issue of confidence if a Queen’s Speech is voted down, so possibly this place is only putting off the fateful day.
What we have seen this afternoon is more of the same from a moribund Parliament, while the public simply shake their head in dismay at what is going on in this place. It is bizarre, is it not? There are those in this House who will not countenance leaving the European Union without a deal.

Angus MacNeil: It is very clear that the Prime Minister wants a cut-and-run general election. Surely, if he loses the vote that he has called tonight, as he has lost many other votes, the Prime Minister should simply follow his convictions and resign: go—go! But no, we know he wants to cut and run before the disaster that is coming. He will be lashed to the tiller and lashed for the disaster, and he should know that.

Craig Mackinlay: I certainly hope that, after that intervention, the hon. Gentleman will support this motion, so that the people can make their decision as well.

Nigel Evans: Has my hon. Friend ever heard so many Opposition Members crying out for an early general election, as they have done for the past two years? The Prime Minister is now giving them that opportunity, and they are running scared. They are not just running scared from the Prime Minister and the next general election, but running scared from the people of this country, who in 2016 said that they wanted to leave the European Union, and it is Opposition Members who are denying them that opportunity to leave the EU. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the British people get the chance to have an early general election, the Conservative party will win it?

Craig Mackinlay: I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. I could not agree with him more.
To get back on track, there are those in this place who will not countenance leaving without a deal. It is quite strange—is it not?—that they are the same people who go to their local market every week and will walk away from a trade if the price or quality is not right. If I said to the Leader of the Opposition, “I have a rusty old heap of a car. It’s yours for £15,000,” I am sure he would just take it without looking any further.
When this House was presented with a withdrawal agreement by the previous Administration, I obviously voted against it because I felt it was a lousy, rotten deal. I do not need to put those objections further tonight. There are many others—I am looking at them—who voted against that deal, the now-defunct withdrawal agreement, because of pure party politics.

Sandy Martin: rose—

Craig Mackinlay: No. Let me make progress. They claim they wanted a deal. As we know, that withdrawal agreement gave the vassalage and perpetual homage to the EU that many of them now seem to crave. It is now clear that this House would not agree a deal even if it were gold-plated. This House no longer reflects the will of the people of this country, who gave that clear message to us—to this Parliament—that we should respect that vote in 2016. They want us to get on with the job. They want us to leave on 31 October. They have waited long enough.
This Parliament serves no further purpose. It is time for a general election. It is time for that people’s vote that many are asking for. It is time to stop those critics who say that our Prime Minister is not properly elected. They can put that right by voting tonight for a general election, and I support that wholeheartedly.

Jo Swinson: I want to say thank you to the MPs in different parts of the House who worked so hard on the Bill that we all passed tonight. It is that cross-party working—putting party interest to one side and putting the national interest first—that the country expects us to do. In particular, those colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have stuck to their principles and done what they think is right should be commended for that. The way that they have been treated has been shameful.
I am intrigued that as a result of the House of Commons saying clearly that we will not countenance crashing out of the EU with no deal, the Prime Minister’s response is that this somehow messes up his plan. It is as if it is news to him that the House of Commons does not want a no-deal exit. Was he not paying attention on the previous occasions that we voted to say that there should not be a no-deal exit? Is he seriously saying that the extent of his plan was to try to bully the EU and that he could only get a good deal by threatening that we would leave without a deal? Because if that is the extent of his plan, it is not very well thought through.

Maria Caulfield: Will the hon. Lady confirm that if there was a general election, the Liberal Democrats would put in their manifesto a pledge to revoke article 50?

Jo Swinson: It should be no surprise to the hon. Lady that the Liberal Democrats want to stop Brexit. We have been crystal clear on stopping Brexit. For all our different views in different parts of the House about that, I do not think that anyone can accuse us of not being straightforward about where we stand.
On the negotiation, the Prime Minister—

Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jo Swinson: I have already given way.
On the terms of the negotiation, the Prime Minister says that he now cannot do this negotiation because we are taking no deal off the table, but we know that there are no serious negotiations anyway. The word “disingenuous” was used by the Father of the House, and I think that that is accurate. The Prime Minister has wanted the job he has for so long it has been almost painful to watch. He has been prepared to say anything and do anything to get that job. He said—

Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jo Swinson: I have given way.
The Prime Minister has said that we will get a great deal. Well, now he has the job. That is the job: go and get a great deal. But he knows that he was just saying whatever came into his head to get the job. He knows he cannot a great deal because there is no such thing as a great Brexit deal, and he is scared of being found out.

Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jo Swinson: I have already given way to somebody on the Government Benches. I am going to say what I have to say.
The way I think that this is best resolved is by putting this issue to the people in a people’s vote to decide on a Brexit way forward. I do not believe there is a majority in this country for any specific type of Brexit deal. I am not even convinced there is a majority in the Conservative party for any type of Brexit deal.
We could have a general election. I say to the Prime Minister that such an election should be held in a responsible, calm and orderly way, and not with the threat of crashing out with no deal either during the campaign or in the immediate aftermath. If he wants an election, extend article 50 for the purposes of having a general election and bring it on. If he is not prepared to do that, do not be surprised when people are not fooled by his tactics and vote against him.

Desmond Swayne: There is one purpose in denying this motion. That is to ensure that the British people have no say whatever over what takes place at the European Council on 17 October, isn’t it?

Anna Soubry: It is very important in this debate that we are all very mindful of the language we use. It has been concerning that right hon. and hon. Government Members, including our Prime Minister, have chosen to use the words “frit” and “frightened” of those of us who believe that the last thing this country needs is a general election. Given everything that has happened in the past few years, there are a number of people in this place who could not be accused of being frightened. In fact, it has taken a lot of courage for some people.
If Government Members are not familiar with courage, they might want to talk to some of those hon. Members they have just booted out of their own party—decent, long-serving and hugely loyal members of the Conservative  party who last night and again today chose to put their constituents and their country first. The price that they have paid is to see the end of their parliamentary career, and this House is right to commend each and every one of them for the considerable courage that it took.
I am in no doubt whatsoever that it is not just the people of Broxtowe, but the people of this country who are thoroughly fed up to the back teeth with Brexit, and that is why I have the very firm view that the matter of Brexit must be brought to a conclusion. There are people in this place who will know, from the many cross-party conversations that we have had—I am proud that we have worked together across parties, putting aside our normal differences, again, in the country’s interest—that my view is that any extension should not go beyond certainly January and maybe February next year, because of the profound need that we must bring this matter to a conclusion. That is one of the reasons why I do not believe that a general election is the answer at all, because it will not solve the Brexit crisis.

Julia Lopez: The second part of the Bill that the right hon. Lady just approved handed power to the EU to dictate whatever extension it wanted—[Interruption.] That is what this says.

Anna Soubry: I am so sorry to tell the hon. Lady, but she has obviously been reading something completely different from the rest of us because it most absolutely does not. The Bill has been carefully drafted, and properly so, to make sure that it is in the interests of our country that we take no deal off the table, because that is the best thing for this country. [Interruption.] I am quite happy to take an intervention, rather than have her just shouting at me. The Bill is all about not stopping Brexit, as many of us would like to, but stopping no deal for all the reasons that have been explained.

Wera Hobhouse: Does the right hon. Lady agree that a no-deal Brexit is no way out of this Brexit conundrum? Years and years of difficulties will follow and it is dishonest and not right to say that a no-deal Brexit will solve the Brexit issue.

Anna Soubry: The hon. Lady is right—she is right not only about no deal, but that the former Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement would also not have ended the debate about Brexit, because it was a blindfolded Brexit that did not determine our future trading relationship with the European Union.
My views on this are well known: I believe that the only way out of the crisis is to have a people’s vote. Put the deal from the former Prime Minister—well, it was not a deal, but at least it was something—to the British people, with remain on the ballot paper, and let us get this matter over. I believe that the British people have also changed their minds. I think that they are now seeing Brexit for what it is and that, given the opportunity, they would vote for the best deal, which is the current deal that we have with the European Union. That is another good reason why this matter must now go back to the British people by way of a people’s vote.

Iain Duncan Smith: I rise only briefly because I know we want to get through this.
The reality is that this is about a general election. We have heard speeches from a number of Opposition Members that are all about nothing to do with the general election, but are about recycling the debate that we had earlier.
The truth is that there is but a simple question in front of the Opposition parties. Only two days ago, they were crying out for an election. The shadow Chancellor said, “Bring it on. We’re ready for it.” The Leader of the Opposition, when he was not having his afternoon nap and was awake enough to be able to meet the media, said that he wanted to have an election. The Scottish nationalists were adamant that they were going to vote for an election.

Angus MacNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Iain Duncan Smith: No, no, wait a minute. The hon. Gentleman has made a fool of himself already. He should stay put; I am doing him a favour. [Interruption.] I am really doing him a favour—he may not understand it.
If they do not vote for an election tonight—if they refuse to vote to have that election—they will be running away from their democratic responsibility. I say to Members such as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—one time my right hon. Friend—

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Iain Duncan Smith: No, honestly, the hon. Gentleman really does not want to do himself any disfavours.
The right hon. Lady talks about a people’s vote. The problem with a people’s vote, if she wants to put it to a referendum, as the new leader of the Liberal party does, is that she would never accept the result—

Anna Soubry: rose—

Iain Duncan Smith: Wait a minute. If the result was to leave, they would not accept it.

Anna Soubry: rose—

Iain Duncan Smith: Wait a minute. Let me finish, because this is important. Here is the fault line: without a different Parliament, a new referendum will change absolutely nothing if the people vote to leave again, because we would come back to this Parliament and they would stop, delay and try to defeat that motion.
The decision tonight is therefore the only decision that can be made in all reality. If we want to decide whether the British people were right, or wrong, to vote leave, we should put it to them in a general election and let them make that decision. [Interruption.] I see the hon. Gentleman opposite shaking his head. Only days ago, he and his colleague on the Front Bench—

Anna Soubry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am so sorry, Mr Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman said something about me that is simply not accurate. I asked whether I could intervene, but he did not allow me to do so. I accept that that is his absolute right, but I think that the record should show that I have always said that if this matter goes back to the British people and they  vote for the former Prime Minister’s deal, or some new magical unicorn deal, as far as I am concerned, that is the end of it.

Iain Duncan Smith: I am going to conclude, Mr Speaker.
If the right hon. Lady wants a people’s vote, I say to her that the people’s vote is in front of us tonight in this debate. It is called a general election. I have never known an Opposition not want to take over. This is a bizarre affair. They are running away from trying to defeat a Government. Let us have that election, let us make that decision, and if the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Labour party right now genuinely believes in democracy, let him put up or shut up.

Jess Phillips: I very much wish to talk about a general election—the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) has criticised others for not doing so—and to speak plainly. Tonight I will absolutely vote against a general election. I would vote against pretty much anything the current Prime Minister put in front of me.
I warn you, Mr Speaker, that I am not cracking on the parliamentary protocols and everything, but I fear I may say some things that are unparliamentary. If I do, please feel free to alert me. I have absolutely no faith in anything the current Prime Minister says—literally none. I would not trust him—am I allowed to say that? Well, there is literally no distance I could trust him. [Interruption.] Conservative Members say, “So stand in an election”. I have no fear—none whatsoever—that I would hold my seat in an election, but the Prime Minister is playing some bully boy game from some bully boy public school that I probably would never understand any more than I understand parliamentary procedures.

Daniel Kawczynski: Student politics!

Jess Phillips: Sorry, would the hon. Gentleman like to make an intervention? Crack on!

Daniel Kawczynski: Student politics!

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Lady says she does not understand parliamentary procedure, but on the whole she does not shriek from a sedentary position. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for 14 years. If he wishes to contribute, he can seek to catch my eye. He should not chunter from a sedentary position in evident disregard for the procedures of the House.

Jess Phillips: The reality is that what we have here is a game, and we are not being told what the rules are. The Prime Minister could bring a deal to the House. He could tell us what his plans are for Northern Ireland, and he could tell us what his plans are for trade. Yesterday, I watched Conservative colleagues begging him to tell them what he wanted—[Interruption.] Yeah, ta-ra a bit, bab. I saw colleagues, begging him, saying “Give us a deal to vote for.”
The Prime Minister has stood up and said, “I don’t want an election.” This is some game that three men in No. 10 Downing Street have come up with: they are trying to game the system so that they will win.
My democratic responsibility is to try to do my absolute best for the people in my constituency. At the moment things are not all that clear and we are all a little bit confused, but I am absolutely not going to use those people as a chitty in a game to enable the Prime Minister to achieve the ambition that he has only ever had for himself, and never for the country. I am not going to use my constituents as collateral damage.

Angus MacNeil: One of the things that people watching the debate should be aware of, and what we all know in here, is that the Government want a cut-and-run election. The election that they do not want is one that would take place on 14 or 21 November; that is the election in which we would take them out.

Jess Phillips: I absolutely agree. Personally, I will not vote for any election that would fall before 31 October.

Tulip Siddiq: I, too, will not vote for a general election tonight. I do not want no deal, because it will harm not only my constituents but the 22,000 EU nationals who are living in my constituency. The Home Secretary has said that freedom of movement will end at midnight on 31 October.

Jess Phillips: I could not agree more. There are thousands of EU migrants in my constituency, and lots of them have absolutely no idea what their situation will be. I have to represent those people as much as I represent the people who would be allowed to vote in a general election or a referendum.

Maria Caulfield: Is not the truth that the hon. Lady and many of her colleagues do not want a general election because they are as scared as we are of the Leader of the Opposition becoming Prime Minister?

Jess Phillips: Let us make no bones about the suggestion that I am not able to be completely critical when I think that things are wrong, both in my party and in the governing party. It is just a shame that quite a lot of the people sitting in front of me know that what has happened over the last two days is wrong, but are too cowardly to say in the House, in public, what they are all saying in the Tea Room. They know what has happened here. It is as if we were kicking out my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). That is what it feels like. I say to those people: the way your party has behaved is an abomination. You have all crowed and given sympathy to me about the problems that we have in the Labour party, but you have just sat by silently while your colleagues have been marched out.

Yasmin Qureshi: I agree with my hon. Friend about the way in which the Conservative party has treated loyal Members of Parliament. Whatever else night be said, I think it is unheard of in parliamentary history for the whip to be suspended from an MP who has voted against his party. That is a bully-boy tactic.

Jess Phillips: I entirely agree.
I am going to speak for Brenda in Bristol, although there are plenty of Brendas in Birmingham. I do not think that we should have a general election, and I will   not vote for one. I also think that we should not have a conference recess and we should not prorogue Parliament. We are currently involved in a national crisis. This is not a game. This is not some toy that we can play with.

Bob Seely: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Jess Phillips: I am not going to give way any more. I apologise, but I have given way plenty of times already.
If we were to go out into the street and ask them, the British public would say that they think we should be in here doing our job. They think that we are away from here too often anyway. I am appalled by the Prorogation—and from now on let’s call it the shutting down of Parliament, because I literally hate the word “Prorogation” and the people outside probably do not understand what we are talking about half the time. The shutting down of Parliament has essentially killed a Bill that I have worked on for two and a half years; it is something that people in this House have deeply held feelings on, and I am meant to believe that the Prime Minister is really doing this because he has a vision for the people in this country. He has a vision that comes to him every night, and it is his own face. I will vote against an election until the end of October—until this is sorted—because the British public want me here working for them, and that is what I will do.

Nigel Evans: I have no doubt that the constituents of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) want her working here and representing them. She talked about this being a national crisis and it is a national crisis, but it is a crisis of trust: it is a crisis of trust in politicians, it is a crisis of trust in democracy, because it was this House that decided to give the British public the referendum in 2016. I know the expectation was that the British public would not vote to leave the European Union, but when they listened to all the arguments they decided that they wished to leave.
Following that, we had a general election. The Labour party and the Conservative party both stood on a similar platform on Brexit and that was that we were going to deliver the Brexit that people voted for. I remember the ballot paper. It said, “Do you want to remain in or leave the European Union?” It was a basic binary question. The fact is that 17.4 million people in this country decided that they wished to leave the European Union; the margin was about 1.4 million. And that was the expectation because of the pamphlet that David Cameron ensured got sent to all the households in the United Kingdom, which said on the back, “We will deliver what the British people have voted for.”
That was in 2016. Today we are in September 2019. We should have left on 29 March, but we did not. Then we should have left on 12 April, but we did not. Then the then Prime Minister said, “I cannot contemplate a date beyond 30 June for us leaving,” and we didn’t. Now it is 31 October and we have just given a Third Reading to a Bill that will extend that by another three months—unless of course the European Union decides it wants the period to be greater than three months, because that is something that we will then have to accept.

Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman can have his beliefs, but he cannot have his own facts. The Bill that we have passed tonight does absolutely nothing unless the Prime Minister fails to come back from the European Council with a deal. If he comes back with a deal, we then vote on it on 19 October. If the House votes for that deal, we leave the European Union with that deal. If that deal does not pass this House, this House has to vote on no deal and, if the House does not agree with no deal, that is when we go for the extension. Those are the facts about what we have done. It does nothing to the negotiations of the Prime Minister. That is a complete fallacy. What is happening here is that this Government are being run by Nigel Farage—that is what is going on here.

Nigel Evans: What this House did today clearly was to weaken the negotiating position of the Prime Minister. We all know that Michel Barnier and the European Union listen very carefully to this Parliament; in fact some MPs in this Parliament have a direct line to Michel Barnier and Juncker and Tusk. They are in fairly well daily contact with them sometimes—[Interruption]. There is one over there. And we know what they are saying: they are saying, “Don’t give in to the British Prime Minister because we can resist Brexit.” And that is what is going to happen.
We know that the British Prime Minister is already in discussions with people such as Angela Merkel and various others within the European Union to ensure that the problems that existed in the old deal are removed, but the Bill that was passed tonight gives the European Union no incentive whatever to come to the negotiating table and to have a proper negotiation.
The Liberal Democrats are at least honest, as are the Scottish nationalists, in saying that they do not wish to leave the European Union. However, given that we have had the referendum and the people have voted to leave, I just wonder which part of “Liberal Democrat” is actually “democrat”, because they clearly are not interested in what the British people voted for in 2016. They ask for a second vote, but what we are offering tonight is a general election, and that can be a second vote. The people will look at the policies of the Labour party under its current leader and at the policies of my party under its current leader, and they will decide whether the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition should go to Brussels for that negotiation on 17 October.
Part of the problem, as we all know, is that during the 2016 referendum three quarters of the Members in this Chamber voted to remain in the European Union. They do not want to leave the European Union, and they will do anything that they possibly can to frustrate our leaving.

Peter Bottomley: I think it would be more accurate, and kinder, to put a full stop and a pause after saying who voted which way in the referendum, before going on to suggest that those who voted one way have been voting the same way during the debate on leaving the European Union. I have voted three times to leave the European Union and I wish the same thing could be said about some of the zealots on my side.

Nigel Evans: The fact is that we now have a Prime Minister who believes in the mission and who wants to negotiate honestly with the European Union and be  able to deliver the Brexit that people really voted for. They voted to leave the customs union and the single market; to not pay vast sums of money to the European Union as we currently do; to control our own immigration; to not be justiciable by the European courts; and certainly not to have a backstop that keeps us in the European Union without our permission and unable to leave. As I said, three quarters of Members of this Parliament voted to remain in the European Union, and the vast majority of those Members still do not wish us to leave. The fact is, however, that the British people have voted to leave the European Union and, if this Parliament decides that we are not going to leave the European Union, the British people ought to have the opportunity to change their Parliament. They can do that tonight.

Caroline Lucas: This attempt to dissolve Parliament is a desperate and utterly cynical move, and I am delighted that it has been made clear tonight by all the Opposition parties that we are not falling for it. The Prime Minister can own his own horrendous mess. He is trying to smuggle out this no-deal Brexit during an election campaign, and that is what makes it so vital that no election happens before there is an extension of article 50—before it is agreed and, crucially, before it is implemented as well.
I notice that the Prime Minister has scuttled off. He cannot even be bothered to listen to the debate on his own motion on something as important as a general election. There are numerous reasons why many of us want to get rid of this cruel and callous Government. Believe me, I am one of those who absolutely wants to do that, not least because this is a Government who are not only doing nowhere near enough to tackle the climate crisis but actively exacerbating it with fracking, fossil fuel subsidies and so on. This is also a Government who have the arrogance to claim that a no-deal Brexit will just be “bumps in the road”. How dare they? They might just be bumps in the road to those on the Front Bench who have the luxury to be insulated from the impacts of a disastrous no-deal Brexit, but for most of our constituents a no-deal Brexit spells real disaster, not bumps in the road. The mere fact that the Government could use that phrase suggests just out how out of touch they are with their own constituents.
A general election on the Prime Minister’s terms right now is a trap. It will not resolve the Brexit crisis. Elections are rarely fought on one issue alone, and first past the post is notoriously bad at reflecting the true views of the public in the seats that are won. If we are to break the Brexit deadlock in Parliament, the people must lead the way. The Prime Minister regularly asserts his commitment to the will of the people, so why is he not prepared to listen to what people want now, specifically on Brexit, and go back to them in a second referendum—a people’s vote? That is how we resolve Brexit, not by proroguing, dissolving, dodging and obfuscating.
I have one more important point about how the people of our country have been let down by successive Governments. The status quo is intolerable for a huge number of people. Brexit laid bare the extent to which our governance structures are derelict. The social contract is broken. The power game is rigged. The 17.4 million people who gave the establishment such a well-deserved kicking in 2016 were right and reasonable to be furious—we  need a powerful commitment now not even to try to go back to the way things were before 2016—but that means tackling democratic failure as well as economic failure. It means redistributing power as well as wealth.
If the Government were genuine about being on the side of the people, they would be honest enough to own the complete chaos that they have managed to create. They would put country before party, back a citizens’ convention to revitalise our democracy and explore proposals such as a codified written constitution and a fairer voting system, so that people’s views are properly heard. Let us at last have a democracy that puts people at the heart of it. The Government would also finally provide a categorical assurance that they will respect this House and the democracy that we do have, and not seek to avoid it in any way or try to avoid implementing the Bill that we have just voted on tonight.

Bernard Jenkin: I think every Member in this House respects the passion and bravery of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), but will she at least recognise the irony that she is calling for the revitalisation of democracy at the same time as speaking against renewing the representative mandate of this House? I would invite the House to consider—[Interruption.] I am going to be very brief. The irony also extends to those crying for a people’s vote who will vote against the people having a vote about the future of this House.
The British public have watched this House of Commons decline into almost a zombie Parliament—one that is incapable of deciding anything and is still dominated by remain thinking and remain attitudes even though the British people clearly voted leave in the referendum. Yesterday, I spoke about the problem of us having created conflicting representative and direct mandates. The legitimacy of this House was unquestionably as a House of representatives, but we qualified that as we introduced the concept of referendums into our constitution. The representative mandate is unalterably qualified by the fact that we had a referendum and said that we would implement the result.
However, this House has failed to implement that result. We therefore must ask ourselves: how is that going to be resolved? It will not be resolved by continuing to put off decisions, yet the Bill, which so many of the remain-supporting Members of this House are so pleased with, does no more than invite the European Union to put off its decisions. What is going to be gained by putting off decisions again? What kind of respect will this House gain by putting off decisions at the same time as avoiding a general election, which would make us accountable to our electors?

Anne Main: Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement? Opposition Members are looking at a Government who have lost their majority, cannot get their business through and are offering the chance of a general election. An election will be about more than just Brexit. There are other things that matter to my constituents and they will still want to renew the mandate and give a Government a mandate to deliver on those things. A Government without the  ability to deliver need to have a general election. I would have thought that any Opposition Member would have accepted that.

Bernard Jenkin: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says, but I return to the question: how is it going to be resolved? Supposing the Opposition are successful, the Bill goes through and the Prime Minister is obliged to go and seek an extension and to accept an extension to, say, 31 January, or whatever date the European Union decides to offer—

Graham Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I am not going to give way.
What will happen after that? A definition of madness is to repeat the same thing again and again expecting a different outcome. The longer this goes on, the more that Members of Parliament will fear holding a general election because, out there, faith in the established political parties—

Graham Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bernard Jenkin: I am not going to give way.
The voters’ faith in the established political parties is not being improved by what is going on; it is being further undermined. The last thing I want is for the whole of British politics to be realigned around the question of Brexit, but that is what will happen the longer we carry on putting off this decision.
Like so many of my voters and so many colleagues in this House, I long to move on to the questions beyond Brexit, but that requires us to respect the decision that has been taken. It requires respect for the fact that there is a Government in office with a responsibility to conduct the negotiations as they see fit, or it requires those who do not have confidence in the Government to table a motion of no confidence to resolve that question.
That brings me back to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, from which the motion we are debating this evening arises. It has turned out to be a recipe for this paralysis, which would never have arisen but for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

Kevan Jones: You voted for it.

Bernard Jenkin: I beg your pardon. The right hon. Gentleman says that accusingly, but I certainly did not vote for it. I remember walking through the No Lobby on Second Reading with remarkably few people, and I said to them, “Don’t worry. This House will rue the day that it passed this piece of legislation.” We should now be rueing the day, because that legislation has put this House in a position where it can endlessly wound a Government but avoid killing them.
If the Leader of the Opposition has so much contempt for how this Government are conducting their affairs, and this Government no longer have a majority, why does he not table a motion of no confidence? It is because there is fear in this House about facing the consequences of a general election because of how this House has conducted the whole Brexit affair for the past three years.
I asked how this will be resolved, and I can tell the House that putting it off again and again will not make the political outcome of the eventual general election any easier for a great many colleagues. The Prime Minister, in his inimitable style, is showing leadership and courage at last. He is trying to resolve this issue.
“Leave” and “remain” were the words on the ballot paper. There was no reference to deal or no deal, but the Prime Minister of the day made it quite clear that we would leave the European Union, and this House has conspired again and again to delay that happening.
People in the constituencies of Opposition Members, particularly in remain-voting constituencies, should ask themselves what mandate they have for putting off this decision again and again. It is democracy in our country that is paying the price, and it is the rise of far more extremist parties that will be the result if this House carries on putting off the decision.

Thelma Walker: When I was elected as Member of Parliament for Colne Valley, one of the things I had to get used to was being addressed as “honourable Lady” and addressing male colleagues as “honourable Gentleman”; it seemed strange and arcane. Yet recently, I have been considering what it means to be honourable, and I have realised that it is indeed appropriate to consider what makes a person truly honourable. It is a pity the Prime Minister is not in his place. Would he be able to confirm that the people of this country consider the Government’s recent behaviour to be honourable? It is clear that many people outside Westminster think not.
Furthermore, I have been reflecting on my years as a teacher and headteacher, and considering how hard I worked, as do all teaching professionals, to instil the right values and ethos throughout a school—things such as respect, honesty and integrity.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Thelma Walker: I will make some progress.
I used to explain to younger children that integrity was doing the right thing even when someone is not watching. Well, we are watching the Prime Minister, and my fear is, if an attempt is being made to get away with no deal with no mandate and to gag Parliament while we are watching, what other horrors are going on behind closed doors? Will the Prime Minister tell me whether he believes his Cabinet has the integrity required to run our country, especially when some are lying flat out along the Front Bench?
I remember being invited to a meeting some time back with a Government Minister to discuss a local constituency matter. He said, “The Chamber is just theatre, and the real work goes on in meetings like this.” That stayed with me, as I know that this place is not theatre to me. When I speak it is from the heart, and I speak for my people in Colne Valley and those who are suffering under this Government’s cruel and callous austerity. Yes, I want a general election, so that we have a Government who act with both honour and integrity and respect the business in this Chamber. However, I want that election on the Opposition’s terms and when there is no possible chance of a no-deal Brexit. The history books will show that this current Government  acted with neither honour nor integrity, and made us the laughing stock of the world. Our country deserves far better.

John Baron: I stand briefly to raise one simple point, and it is an inconvenient truth for many in this Chamber: the overwhelming majority of Members here tonight voted to trigger article 50. What it said, very simply, was that we would leave the EU by 29 March, with or without a deal. Yet we have now seen two extensions to that deadline, and to many outside this place that is evident proof that there are too many remain MPs who will clasp on to any passing straw in order to delay and frustrate the EU referendum result. That is very wrong indeed. Not only does it make for a lack of trust, but it reinforces a scepticism in our politics that is not healthy at all.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Baron: I will give way in a moment, but I wish to finish this point. We have seen people clasp straws in the wind such as, “The people need another vote” and, “We need to support this motion.” The Opposition’s motion was ridiculous; anybody who has negotiated will understand that if one signals to those on the other side of the table that one is not prepared to walk away, it makes for a worse deal. That is a fact, but not to the many Members who will clasp at any straw to try to frustrate Brexit.
I will give one other example of how Brexit is being frustrated in this place. There is a near hysteria about no deal, despite the fact that the UK trades with the majority of the world’s GDP—with many countries outside the EU—on no-deal World Trade Organisation terms. Five of the EU’s top 10 trading partners trade on the basis of no-deal WTO terms. Since “Project Fear” in 2016 failed, we have had record low unemployment, record manufacturing output and record investment—in fact, last year we had more inward investment than France and Germany—all in the full knowledge that we could leave on no-deal WTO terms. Despite all that, Members in this place—too many remain MPs—have clasped at straws to frustrate Brexit and disregard the EU referendum result. That must now end. People have lost their patience with this place. The time has come to put forward actions instead of words.

David Hanson: I voted to trigger article 50, but the then Prime Minister called a general election, and I set down red lines to my constituents about what kind of deal I would vote for. The then Prime Minister in effect lost that election by losing 40-odd seats. My mandate comes from the 2017 election.

John Baron: That is not a fair point, for the simple reason that in that general election both the Labour manifesto and the Conservative manifesto promised to deliver Brexit. All we have seen since is utter delay and confusion, caused largely by remain MPs who will not honour the referendum result.

Graham Jones: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that this is a remain Parliament with remain MPs—he keeps throwing that around—but the House of Commons Library confirmed that in excess of 575 MPs have voted  for Brexit and voted for leave. How can he say that they are remain MPs when they vote to leave the European Union?

John Baron: For the simple reason that the House has consistently voted not to honour the triggering of article 50. We keep kicking it into the long grass. When the hon. Gentleman and I voted to trigger article 50, the Bill was simple and short: it said that we would leave by 29 March, with or without a deal.

Graham Jones: rose—

John Baron: No, the hon. Gentleman has had his chance. It said that we would leave with or without a deal. Too many Members have continued to kick the can down the road—not once, not twice, but now three times, courtesy of the Bill passed earlier. It is absolutely ridiculous, and people are utterly fed up with it. A lot of remain MPs must look at themselves in the mirror and own up to the fact that all they want to do is stop Brexit. The people out there have had enough.

Sandy Martin: I am absolutely desperate to have a general election. I want to see a Government who will halt the privatisation of the national health service, who will properly fund our public services, who will stop the wealth of this country being squirreled away in tax havens in the Caribbean and who will care about the majority of people in this country and not just about the very wealthy, but that is not why the Prime Minister is calling for a general election. The Prime Minister is not calling for a general election so that we can have a Labour Government. The Prime Minister is calling for a general election so that, when and if we were to vote for it, he would be in sole control of what happened in this country, and there would be no Parliament here to hold him to account when we leave with a no-deal Brexit.
In my constituency of Ipswich, more than 50% of the people who voted in the referendum voted to leave. It was not much more than 50%, but it was more than 50%. I would not vote for a straight vote to revoke article 50, because that would be wrong. After there has been a referendum and people have voted to leave the European Union—albeit by a narrow margin—it would be entirely wrong for this House simply to go against those wishes.

Robert Goodwill: rose—

Sandy Martin: I am sorry, I will not give way.
I want to see this Parliament agree on a viable deal that will not destroy the economy of this country. When we have a second vote—a people’s vote, a second referendum or whatever you want to call it—which I think we should have if we are to bring the country back together, I want there to be a viable choice. I do not believe that a no-deal Brexit is a viable choice. A no-deal Brexit is a suicide note. If anybody on the Government Benches thinks that, as passengers in a car speeding towards a cliff edge, we will take the option of jumping out just before we reach that cliff edge, they have another think coming. Yes, we will have a general election.   This Government will not survive for very much longer, because they do not have an overall majority, but we will not have that general election while there is the danger of a no-deal Brexit.

Bob Seely: I have to say that I find this a surreal debate in a zombie Parliament. I have tried pinching myself to make sure that I am awake. I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) whether this was a dream, and he assured me that it was not. I heard one of my colleagues saying, “Now, Bob, please make it go away.” All I can say is that people who organise a coup generally do not put that coup to the people in the form of a vote. We want a people’s vote; it is called a general election. The Government are trying to get their agenda through, but, because of the nature of this Parliament, they are not succeeding. Therefore, we need an election to ask the people what they are for, rather than simply having their representatives endlessly voting on what they are against.
I want an election because I want a Government who deliver Brexit and then, frankly, get on and govern. The Scottish islands have the special islands needs allowance. I want something similar for my Isle of Wight. I was talking about it to the Prime Minister in the Tea Room today, and he is keen to give it to us. I want the Government to cover the NHS—an extra £10 million in revenue—local government, environment, food and rural affairs, and housing. We cannot get that. For six months, we have not had a domestic agenda because of our monomaniacal obsession with Brexit.
I do not know what the Opposition parties want. Three times they have been offered a Brexit deal, and three times they have refused it. Tonight, they are being offered a general election, and tonight they are refusing it. They cling to a zombie Parliament for fear of what will happen when they go to the people. We need a new Parliament, because we need a Government with a mandate and a Parliament that votes for something positive. From now on, a collection of Opposition MPs should, frankly, be known as a shambles. We offer leadership; what they offer, God knows.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: What the Prime Minister has put to us is clearly a poisoned chalice. He is like the schoolroom clown, who thinks that he can offer us something while dancing around and blabbering from the Dispatch Box. But we know who he is. He is a man who has been twice sacked for lying. He clearly is a person we cannot trust, and we therefore—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to parts of a Member’s career. I do not think he is making any allegation, and I sincerely hope that he is not—[Interruption.] If you will let me finish, I hope he is not making any allegation about the conduct of a Member in this Chamber.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: indicated dissent.

John Bercow: He is not, and therefore he is not out of order—[Interruption.] He is not out of order. I know the rules, and I know how to interpret them. I do not  require any guidance from anybody on that matter. I am very clear about that. I say to him that there is much to be said for moderation in the use of parliamentary language. As somebody who likes the hon. Gentleman, I urge him to be a little more courteous.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I will correct myself and say that the Prime Minister was allegedly sacked for lying twice, and the public—
One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)).

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 56.
Question accordingly agreed to, without the majority required under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

John Bercow: The Ayes have it, but the House will be aware that the motion has not obtained the majority required under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

Boris Johnson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I note that the Leader of the Opposition is once again not in his place, in what I think is a slightly symbolic way.  Forty-eight hours ago, he was leading the chants of “Stop the coup and let the people vote,” and now he is saying, “Stop the election and stop the people from voting.” There is only one solution: he has become, to my knowledge, the first Leader of the Opposition in the democratic history of our country to refuse the invitation to an election. I can only speculate—[Interruption.] I can only speculate as to the reasons behind his hesitation. The obvious conclusion is, I am afraid, that he does not think he will win. I urge his colleagues to reflect on the unsustainability of this position overnight and in the course of the next few days.

Bernard Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there some way of tabling a motion “That this House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Opposition”?

John Bercow: I note—

Boris Johnson: rose—

John Bercow: No, I am dealing with one point at a time. One has to proceed in an orderly manner in these matters, I say to the Prime Minister. I am dealing with one point of order, and when I have dealt with it, I shall happily attend to another. It is evident from the smile on the face of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) that he is very pleased with the point he has made.

Boris Johnson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just going to elaborate by saying that this is the first time in history that the Opposition have voted to show confidence in Her Majesty’s Government.

John Bercow: Thank you.

ANIMAL WELFARE (SENTENCING) BILL

Bill to be considered tomorrow.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

SELECTION

Ordered,
That Christopher Pincher, Mark Spencer and Craig Whittaker be discharged from the Selection Committee and Rebecca Harris, Amanda Milling and Iain Stewart be nominated.—(Jeremy Quin.)

PETITION - FUNDING FOR HOLLINGWOOD PRIMARY SCHOOL

Judith Cummins: I rise to present this petition on behalf of the community of Hollingwood Primary School and the 343 parents, carers, staff and pupils who have signed it. They are seriously concerned about the impact that funding cuts are having on their school.
I would like to state, for the record, what an excellent school Hollingwood is. I know from visiting the school that the headteacher and his staff are continuing to  provide a quality education for all their pupils. However, they are doing so, like many schools, in increasingly difficult circumstances.
As the petition states, the school has seen a decline in funding per pupil of £297, and an overall reduction of £249,153 since 2019. This is having an impact on the ability of the school to provide a well-rounded education for all pupils. Several parents have written to me to say how much they value the extra support the school offers, and their fear that this may not continue given the funding reductions.
Many are concerned about the school’s Busy Bees nurture programme, which supports the wellbeing of vulnerable children. The school’s nurture practitioner has written to me to express her concern, and to tell me the value of the support that they provide. She recounted one young person returning to the school and recalling:
“I have my family at home, but Busy Bees was my family at school.”
It is this sense of belonging and security that schemes such as nurture provide, and which we cannot afford to lose.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to increase per pupil funding and reverse the cuts made to school budgets.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of Parents, carers, staff and pupils of Hollingwood Primary School,
Declares that Hollingwood Primary School has seen a decline in funding per pupil of £297 and £249,143 overall in the sum allocated to the school between 2015 and 2019; further that the school is facing significant budget pressures as a result and is having to make changes to save money that impact directly on its ability to provide a well-rounded education for all pupils.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to increase per pupil funding and reverse the cuts made to school budgets.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002515]

PETITION - DISPUTE IN KASHMIR

Alison Thewliss: First, I thank the many who managed to put this petition together and gather the signatures, particularly Abdul Majid, a stalwart campaigner in Glasgow, Dr Irfan Jahangir and Dr Javed Gill of the Scottish Human Rights Forum and their team of volunteers. They have put together a huge number of signatures, and I understand that more are still coming in to my office.
My constituents are deeply concerned for the welfare of their friends and relatives in Kashmir at the moment. They are concerned about the curfew and about the internet and media blackout that has been going on, despite the best efforts of organisations and journalists, including the BBC World Service, to bring some light on the situation. They seek the de-escalation of the conflict, time-limited talks and for the people of Kashmir to have the right to self-determination that they have long sought.
The petition reads:
The petition of Residents of the City of Glasgow,
Declares that the dispute in Kashmir should be resolved peacefully.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the UK Government to use its international standing to encourage India to engage in a comprehensive and sustained dialogue process with its neighbour Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute, and urge the international community to play its role in securing a just and peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002512]

Neil Gray: I rise to present a petition on the dispute in Kashmir. It is in similar terms to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I put on record my thanks, as she did, to those who collected the names for this petition from my constituents in Airdrie and Shotts.
The petition states:
The petition of Residents of Airdrie and its surrounding area
Declares that the dispute in Kashmir should be resolved peacefully.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the UK Government to use its international standing to encourage India to engage in a comprehensive and sustained dialogue process with its neighbour Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute, and urge the international community to play its role in securing a just and peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002516]

PETITION - GCSES AND DYSLEXIA

Michael Fallon: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituent, Mrs Sonia Ash, which expresses concern about the current standards in marking GCSE English exams taken by students with dyslexia. This petition has been signed by over 10,200 people.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Sevenoaks,
Declares concern over the current standards in marking GCSE English exams taken by students with dyslexia; further declares that many children with dyslexia are exceptionally gifted at English but struggle to pass their English GCSE due to how many marks are dedicated to spelling and punctuation; further notes that this is discrimination and can negatively affect children’s futures, mental health and access to further education opportunities; and further notes a local petition started by Mrs Sonia Ash on this matter that has received over 10,200 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review the current marking system in regard to students with dyslexia to make the system fairer and to remove marks for spelling, handwriting and punctuation on English GCSE exams for children with dyslexia, so they are not discriminated against.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002513]

PETITION - FUNDING FOR ST JOHN’S CE PRIMARY SCHOOL

Judith Cummins: I rise to present this petition on behalf of the community of St John’s CE Primary School, and the 366 parents and carers who have signed it. This petition highlights the  serious concerns that they have about the impact that school funding cuts are having on their school. St John’s has seen a decline in funding per pupil of £306 and has lost £248,890 in total since 2015.
Every single school in my constituency has faced cuts such as these due to Government disregard for our children’s future. These cuts mean fewer teachers, fewer support staff and schools cutting back on additional activities. They hit the most vulnerable children hardest and it is a disgrace.
Just this week, we have seen the Government’s new funding announcement, and it is overwhelmingly targeted at schools in the south of England, bypassing schools with the most need in areas such as mine. I will always fight for proper funding for our schools, so that every child in Bradford South gets the start in life they deserve. I know that the hard-working teachers at St John’s and all other schools simply want to provide well-rounded education to their pupils. It is time that we gave them the resources to do that.
The petition states:
The Petition of parents, carers, staff and pupils of St John’s CE Primary School,
Declares that St John’s CE Primary School has seen a decline in funding per pupil of £306 and £248,890 overall in the sum allocated to the school between 2015 and 2019; further that the school is facing significant budget pressures as a result and is having to make changes to save money that impact directly on its ability to provide a well-rounded education for all pupils.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to increase per pupil funding and reverse the cuts made to school budgets.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002514]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE: TREASURY FUNDING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Nigel Huddleston.)

Robert Halfon: It is a huge pleasure to see you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in the Chair this evening, not just because you are my constituency neighbour as the Member for Epping Forest, but because you have worked so hard alongside me to get a vital new hospital health campus in Harlow at the Princess Alexandra Hospital. I am hugely grateful to you for being here today. I am grateful to the Speaker for granting this debate, my fifth, on capital funding for the Health Department, particularly for new hospital projects. I strongly welcome the extra £34 billion that is going into the NHS over the next few years. The Government are rightly making the NHS a priority in their spending plan. In doing so, they are helping to create certainty for our hospitals, future-proofing them for the challenges ahead. However, this day-to-day funding does not account for bigger-scale capital funding projects, such as new hospitals. The Health Service Journal suggests that in the past two years NHS providers have requested about £8.7 billion of capital funding in more than 360 formal bids.
The Prime Minister’s announcement of an £850 million cash boost for 20 new hospital upgrades is a step in the right direction, but we risk a healthcare crisis in this country if we do not act quickly. Many of our hospitals in England were built in the 1960s and 1970s and, while our model of care has modernised, the infrastructure has fallen behind. Many of our NHS hospitals are no longer fit for the 21st century, sadly none more so than the Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust in Harlow.
You will no doubt understand the frustration of our constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker, and those of our neighbours, particularly those who work at the Princess Alexandra, that our Harlow hospital was not included in the hospital upgrade programme announced by the Prime Minister. As well as the numerous letters and conversations with colleagues, I have raised on no fewer than 30 occasions during questions in the Chamber the need for a new hospital health campus to serve west Essex. I mentioned that this is my fifth debate. I have also tabled 11 Commons motions. I am pleased to see a number of right hon. and hon. Members here who have also championed the case for increased hospital funding. Six local MPs, including you, Madam Deputy Speaker, helped significantly in writing to the Health Secretary in May last year, pledging their support for a new hospital and acknowledging its importance to
“the vitality of community and also to the economy of the entire region.”
Our passion and determination for a new health campus is founded in the desperate situation that we find ourselves in.

Jim Shannon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Halfon: Of course. It is impossible not to give way to the hon. Gentleman—my hon. Friend, I should say.

Jim Shannon: I did seek the right hon. Gentleman’s permission earlier today, before the Adjournment debate, to make an intervention. Does he not agree that it is tremendous to see the Government today, through the Chancellor’s statement, listening to need and allocating additional funding for other things, such as policing, Northern Ireland and education, as well as some £1 billion, I understand, for health and social care? However, we do need a standard increase in the block budget under the Barnett formula for Northern Ireland. I suggest that that needs to be ring-fenced to provide frontline services that are also underfunded and on which there has to be a focus. I fully support his request to the Government, because across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland there are pressures on health and social care. It is important that everybody in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland sees the benefits.

Robert Halfon: I thank my hon. Friend. He has attended every debate I have secured on the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow. That shows that there is not just support across Essex and Hertfordshire, but from as far afield as his constituency of Strangford and across Northern Ireland. His question, in essence, is about important funding for devolution and fair funding across the board. I completely agree with him and I thank him again for coming, on this fifth occasion, to support my campaign for a new hospital in Harlow.
We need a new hospital for four substantive reasons. First, and there are no two ways about it, the hospital estate is falling down. It is crumbling around staff, patients and visitors, so much so that it is inhibiting the work of our hardworking NHS staff who brought the hospital out of special measures in 2018. The Health Secretary himself, having visited the hospital at the start of this year, stated in this Chamber that:
“the basement of Harlow hospital is in a worse state of disrepair than the basement of this building.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2019; Vol. 662, c. 941.]
That is saying something, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Given that the Palace of Westminster has been promised a £3 billion restoration, I ask the Minister: when will the Treasury prioritise the crumbling basement of our NHS hospital in Harlow? Whenever I visit Princess Alexandra Hospital—as a patient, visitor, or in my capacity as an MP—I am genuinely astounded by the quality of care and exceptional service that is delivered, as was the Health Secretary on his visit. Following a comprehensive tour, he said:
“I’m incredibly impressed with how much the staff are managing to do in the current facilities.”
My inbox, however, is filled with the anxieties of constituents about the pressure on A&E and the condition of the estate. The doctors, nurses and specialists are working in extremely tight spaces, in an immensely pressurised environment. Staff simply cannot be expected to make service improvements, nor to meet NHS waiting time guidelines. I ask the Minister: how can we expect our NHS staff to deliver the high standards that we demand when they do not have the physical space, bed capacity or modern equipment to carry out their jobs?
In no other working environment would we expect as much in the 21st century. The remarkable hospital staff —everyone from the cleaners, porters, ancillary staff, nurses, doctors and consultants to the management  team, led by a very special chief executive, Lance McCarthy —have progressed in leaps and bounds. I am particularly grateful to the chief executive for his decision to keep domestic services in-house, protecting the jobs and livelihoods of many Harlow residents.
In July, I was delighted to welcome Kathy Gibbs into Westminster for the NHS parliamentary awards. She was a finalist for the lifetime achievement award after dedicating her entire career to Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow. The neonatal unit has received a number of accolades for its dedicated care and has recently been shortlisted as a finalist to receive the Bliss neonatal excellence team award. Should the Minister wish to see at first hand the brilliant work that is done in the busy maternity ward, I encourage him to catch up with the latest series of W Channel’s documentary following TV personality Emma Willis as she joined our Harlow hospital team to train as a maternity care assistant.
All across the hospital, there is a collective effort to raise standards. The entire catering team at the hospital’s restaurant were celebrating recently, having again been awarded a five-star food hygiene rating from environmental health officers. Despite the challenges that they face, Princess Alexandra NHS staff are making progress beyond expectations. In the light of their hard work and proven capabilities, does the Minister agree that our NHS staff are some of the most deserving of a new hospital and place of work that is fit for purpose? They have shown us what they can do in an outdated, difficult working environment—just imagine what they could achieve if they were given the tools to succeed.
Our population is growing at an extraordinary rate, placing enormous strain on local healthcare resources. Our hospital, and town, was built in the 1950s to serve a population of approximately 90,000. Since then, Harlow has seen considerable change, going from strength to strength. We have a thriving enterprise hub—Kao Park—which is home to a state-of-the-art data centre and international businesses such as Pearson and Raytheon, offering unparalleled employment opportunities to thousands of residents. Thousands of new housing developments are under construction to accommodate our fast-growing population and help first-time buyers to get on the ladder of opportunity.
Yet, with this extraordinary population growth, there is unbearable pressure on staff at the Princess Alexandra. Our hospital is struggling to cope with healthcare demands from around 350,000 people, exacerbated by the closure of nearby A&E units at Chase Farm Hospital and the Queen Elizabeth II Hospital. We have one of the busiest A&E units in the country and this trajectory of growth is only set to continue. Soon, Harlow will become home to Public Health England, and we have the chance to become the public health science capital of the world, offering employment to hundreds of people and bringing in many new residents. The near completion of junction 7A on the M11 will improve accessibility to our town, encouraging investment and prospects for business expansion. Given this faster-than-average population growth, does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that we cannot expect our NHS staff to bear the brunt of such demand without giving them the proper resource—a new health campus—to do so?
It is not only about numbers. The third challenge that Harlow faces has been caused by out-of-area placements into large-scale, commercial-to-residential conversions.  Permitted development rights legislation has been a disaster for our town. Many of the families placed in temporary accommodation in Harlow by London councils have additional healthcare needs and come to our hospital for medical support, yet neither our local council nor the Princess Alexandra Hospital are given any extra funding to provide this. We face unique pressures on our health and social care resources in Harlow. Does the Minister not agree that a healthcare campus would help to alleviate these pressures as well as offering space for further expansion?
Fourthly, as a champion of skills and the ladder of opportunity, which I know the Minister in his previous role cared deeply about, we need this health campus to create a hub for learning, skills, training, research and development in Essex. Already, the Princess Alexandra Hospital is winning awards for its high-quality training, mentoring and career progression. Fair Train, a national organisation championing work-based learning, awarded our Harlow hospital the gold rating—the top rating—for its workplace opportunities.
That said, the hospital faces immense challenges with recruiting and maintaining qualified professionals, in part due to the appeal of London hospitals and private practices just 40 minutes away. The new health campus would bring with it exciting opportunities for scientific research collaborations with Public Health England and local enterprises. Apprenticeships and unrivalled training courses with Harlow College would help to upskill our workforce and give Essex residents new opportunities to further their life chances.
The new healthcare campus in Harlow could lead the way in health science education and training. Does the Minister recognise the wider benefits that the new healthcare campus would have in upskilling people of all ages in Essex and Hertfordshire, creating employment and research opportunities and boosting our economic prospects? Will he help to make Harlow the health science capital of the world by granting the capital funding to make that a reality?
As the steady stream of investment into our Harlow hospital shows, the Government are aware of the unique pressures that the Princess Alexandra Hospital faces. At the start of this year, I was privileged to open the Charnley ward, a desperately needed £3.3 million development constructed in just four months. Last December, we received £9.5 million to provide additional bed capacity, and in the autumn there was a £2 million investment to make preparations for the busy winter period ahead. Does the Minister not agree, however, that it is the Conservative way to consider what is best value for money for the taxpayer and that, while short-term cash investment provides much-needed relief, it does not go to the heart of the problem?

Jonathan Lord: My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant case for a new health campus in Harlow. Will he allow the Minister in response to dilate a bit on the need for money to follow where population growth has taken place, as it has in Surrey and Woking? He makes a very good case for that in terms of his constituency, but of course there are wider effects as well, particularly in terms of capital investment, as he rightly says.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is a brilliant constituency MP. I talk to him a lot about these matters, and he has just hit the nail on the head. Population growth is crucial. The money should follow population growth, and I accept that this is a problem not only in Harlow but in his constituency, in Strangford and across the country.
The existence of these quick, cheap add-on structures can actually add to the problems. They were described by the former Health Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), as “sub-optimal clinical adjacencies”. The convoluted layout of our hospital is making the job of our NHS hospital staff more and more challenging day by day. It is slowing down their work and costing the taxpayer more. The Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow faces costs of £153,000 per week just to maintain its current position.
The cost of eradicating the maintenance backlog nationally—in other words, carrying out repairs to meet a certain standard—has climbed year on year to about £6 billion, and the day-to-day running costs of NHS estates have risen to £8.8 billion. Outdated, deteriorating infrastructure is costing the taxpayer more and more each year. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment of an additional £1 billion to improve and maintain existing buildings, but we must recognise that Elastoplast solutions only generate a need for greater spending down the line. We need a capital injection that will cure the problem—a vaccine—and not a simple patch-up job.
Time and again, I have been informed that we have a real chance of securing the capital funding. Previous Health Ministers have visited the Princess Alexandra, and it has been visited by the current and previous Health Secretaries on a number of occasions. We have been told that we have a good case for the £400 million of capital funding required to build our new health campus and that the Government will
“look very seriously at the proposals”.
That was confirmed by a former health Minister, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), during his visit to the hospital in May. However, nearly a year on, we still have not seen the major investment for which we have been collectively calling.
Does the Minister not recognise that the financially strategic way forward for both the taxpayer and the Government would be to grant the Princess Alexandra the capital funding that would enable it to commence its plans for a brand-new health campus? The trust’s board has worked incredibly hard to start planning for “a preferred way forward” that would provide the best value for money for the taxpayer. The final hurdle is the £400 million of capital funding, which would save money in the long run.
This scheme would have extraordinary benefits for our town and release land for more than 400 homes. We cannot sit by and let the building continue to deteriorate, pouring taxpayers’ money needlessly down the drain. We need drastic action. We need a new health campus for Harlow that is fit for the 21st century and will last for many years to come. We need it for Harlow, and we need it for the wider population of Essex and Hertfordshire.

Chris Skidmore: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this important debate. It is  the first debate to which I have been able to respond in my new role. I know that my right hon. Friend campaigns tirelessly on matters of healthcare in Essex and, in particular, on the issue of funding for the Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust. I also know that he met my predecessor to discuss issues, including the hospital’s workforce and the services provided by the trust. This is the fifth debate that he has initiated on this issue, which may be a record in the House of Commons. We in the Department, and my officials who are sitting in the Box tonight, are fully aware of the concerns that he has raised. Let me explain why we continue to take them seriously and want to continue to work with him.
Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), have visited the trust over the past few months and seen at first hand the excellent work that is being done by NHS staff despite the challenges faced by the estate, which my right hon. Friend has described. I should be delighted if he welcomed a visit from me so I could see the estate and thank the staff for the excellent work that they have done in improving the hospital. My right hon. Friend described in his eloquent speech the commitment that the staff have given to the hospital, across the board, and I should be delighted to see that at first hand.
As my right hon. Friend knows, the Government have already made significant funding available for health capital investment, recognising that the NHS faces the challenges posed by poor infrastructure and ageing estates. Between 2016-17 and 2018-19, we increased capital funding by £1.3 billion, an increase of about 30%. As my right hon. Friend said, we have also announced a £1 billion funding boost for the NHS, along with 20 new hospital upgrades to help staff to deliver the best possible health services in their buildings. I have had the pleasure of touring some of these potential new upgrades, including in Luton and Dunstable, which is relatively near my right hon. Friend’s patch, with a £99 million project, and Heartlands hospital in Birmingham, Barking, Stoke, Staffordshire and Croydon, to recognise that we do need to see upgrades—not just these 20 upgrades, but future additional upgrades.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is committed to ensuring we make future investments in capital for the NHS. He recently set out that we will establish a new health infrastructure plan. This will be brought forward to deliver strategic major hospital rebuilding programmes, providing the necessary health infrastructure across the country. The shape of this will be confirmed in due course. I am not able to give specific details, but it will be similar to the road investment strategy process at the Department for Transport, with further long-term capital funding that we are discussing with our Treasury colleagues.
Delivering capital investment is a complex process and it takes time. I fully understand that my right hon. Friend has been very patient about the Princess Alexandra hospital, but this does need to be done thoroughly and professionally, alongside delivering the everyday healthcare services. There is a necessary process of assurance to ensure that services are transformed for the benefit of patients. This process is led by the trust, and includes a number of business case checkpoints and involves procurement, design, delivery and capability. Funding is provided when the full business case has been approved.
The 20 hospital upgrades announced in August were for hospitals that had just missed out on the sustainable transformation programme bid in December 2018, so were able to be progressed having followed the process.
I take the point raised on population growth. That is important in assessing future bids; they must be based on future patient demand, just as clinical commissioning group allocations are currently adjusted to population to take account of growth and movement. I take the point that the areas outside London in the home counties have increased population and population movement, and we are therefore constantly in a state of catch-up in local healthcare services.
I know that my right hon. Friend has also raised proposals to build a new hospital in Harlow with the Chancellor of the Exchequer; I know that because I saw a picture on his Twitter feed, and I am sure he will have listened closely to proposals to fund a new health campus in Harlow.
On 5 August the Government announced a £1.8 billion increase to NHS capital spending, on top of the additional £3.9 billion announced in the 2017 spring and autumn budgets. Some £1 billion of this increase will ensure existing upgrade programmes can proceed by tackling the most urgent projects, and £850 million of the funding will allow 20 new hospital upgrades. I am sure my right hon. Friend will welcome that Luton and Dunstable near his constituency will benefit from this. However, I know he will be understandably disappointed that the new health campus in Harlow scheme was not included on that list. However, the scheme has the support of the Secretary of State for Health and other Ministers, and I understand that the scheme is well developed. NHS Improvement and NHS England will continue to work with the trust to develop its options to tackle the challenges it faces and secure the best outcomes for patients.
In the wider Essex area, there have been several successful bids in the sustainability and transformation partnership tranche 4, which includes £4.2 million awarded to Luton and Dunstable renal dialysis unit relocation, £7.1 million awarded to the Hertfordshire and west Essex vascular surgery network, £11 million to the West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust emergency care transformation and in Suffolk and north-east Essex £18 million awarded to the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust for infrastructure and capacity transformation.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that this affirms the Government’s commitment to ensuring the region receives its share of NHS funding. We expect there to be further opportunities to access capital in future years, with the decision on what this looks like to be decided in due course. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will continue to listen to my right hon. Friend’s appeals on this issue, and I will be happy to make representations on his behalf.
Earlier today, the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to a £33.9 billion cash-terms increase in the NHS budget by 2023-24. This includes a £6.2 billion increase in NHS funding next year. This historic NHS settlement provides the largest cash increase in public services since the second world war. There is not time to go into the specific details of how this will be spent, but I would urge everyone, as part of their  bedtime reading, to turn to page 9 of the Blue Book of spending round 2019 to see how some of that money is being spent. I am delighted that it will also include a £250 million funding boost for Health Education England next year, which is equivalent to 3.4% real-terms growth.[Official Report, 5 September 2019, Vol. 664, c. 3MC.] This will allow staff at the Princess Alexandra Hospital, particularly nurses, midwives and allied health professionals, to access a personal training budget of £1,000 for every member of staff of those professions. Staff at the hospital will be able to benefit from some of the announcements that have been made today.
As a former Universities Minister, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s work as Chairman of the Education Committee and to his statement about the importance of research in relation to the campus and the health hub. We recognise that, when it comes to training, there needs to be an holistic approach to funding. Yes, capital is important, but we must ensure that the individuals working in those new buildings feel that they have a place within their local NHS and that they want to stay there and continue to work there. That is why some of the announcements today on education and training are absolutely vital, and I am sure my right hon. Friend shares that commitment. Looking at some of the money that has been announced today, we also see that £250 million is to be invested in ground-breaking new AI technologies to help to solve some of healthcare’s toughest challenges.
When we look at the Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, we must also look at the Harlow science hub campus programme, which is incredibly exciting. I remember it being announced in the 2016 Budget, when I was the former Chancellor’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. There was enormous excitement, and I would like to commend my right hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning relating to the public health campus, which would not have happened if it was not for him making the case in the first place and going to the former Chancellor and securing the funding. It will be the  largest centre of its kind in Europe, providing a new national centre for applied and public health science, as well as the headquarters of Public Health England. I know that this is still on schedule with the demolition work already under way, as is the preparation for the construction work, which starts early next year.
I know that Public Health England and the chief executive of the Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust have been in discussions over the last 12 months about what opportunities can arise as a result of the move to Harlow, and I hope to hear more about this soon. Indeed, I will be delighted to come up to Harlow as part of the visit to the hospital trust and to look at how we can explore developing the wider benefits that the scheme may have.

Robert Halfon: I thank my hon. Friend very much for what he has said and for his commitment to visit the Princess Alexandra Hospital. Just to be clear, will he confirm that there will be a capital fund from the Treasury for significant capital funding programmes for significant hospital upgrades and that the Princess Alexandra Hospital is very much on that list?

Chris Skidmore: This was announced today as part of the spending round document. Paragraph 2.4 states:
The Department for Health and Social Care will receive a new multi-year capital settlement at the next capital review. This will look to deliver a smarter, more strategic long-term approach to the country’s health infrastructure, with investment focused on local areas where the need is greatest. The plan will include capital to build new hospitals”.
I want to reassure my right hon. Friend that when it comes to the Princess Alexandra Hospital, it is under serious consideration in relation to ensuring that that refurbishment will be able to take place for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.